1

G.R. No. 149152             February 2, 2007

RUFINO S. MAMANGUN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

TOPIC: Justifying circumstance (acted in the performance of duty)

Crime charged: Murder

Decision of Sandiganbayan: convicted of homicide

Decision of SC: decision of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED

Information:

That on or about the 31st day of July 1992, in the Municipality of Meycauyan, (sic) Province of Bulacan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused Rufino S. Mamangun, a public
officer, being then a Police Officer (PO2), duly appointed as such and acting in relation to his office, armed with
a gun, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery, evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength, attack, assault and shoot one Gener M. Contreras with the said
gun, hitting the latter on his body, thereby inflicting (sic) him serious physical injuries which directly cause (sic)
his death.

Facts:

Version of the defense

On July 31, 1992, at about 8:00 in the evening, in Brgy. Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan a certain Liberty
Contreras was heard shouting, "Magnanakaw…Magnanakaw." Several residents responded and thereupon
chased the suspect who entered the yard of Antonio Abacan and proceeded to the rooftop of Abacan’s house.

At about 9:00 o’clock that same evening, the desk officer of the Meycauayan PNP Police Station, upon
receiving a telephone call that a robbery-holdup was in progress in Brgy. Calvario, immediately contacted and
dispatched to the scene the crew of Patrol Car No. 601 composed of Team Leader SPO1 Andres Legaspi, with
PO2 Eugenio Aminas and herein petitioner PO2 Rufino S. Mamangun; and Patrol Car No. 602 composed of
Team Leader PO3 Sandiego San Gabriel, with PO2 Carlito Cruz and PO2 Hobert Diaz. With the permission of
Abacan, petitioner Mamangun, PO2 Diaz and PO2 Cruz went to the rooftop of the house whereat the suspect
was allegedly taking refuge.

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 from the gunshot wound.

According to Ayson, the lone eyewitness for the prosecution, he accompanied the three policemen (Mamangun,
Diaz and Cruz) to the rooftop of Abacan’s house. He was following petitioner Mamangun who was ahead of the
group. They passed through the second-floor door of the house to the rooftop. The roof was lighted by an
incandescent bulb from an adjacent house. He was beside Mamangun when they saw, some four to five arms-
length away, a man whom he (witness) recognized as Gener Contreras. Mamangun pointed his .45 cal. pistol at
the man, who instantly exclaimed, "Hindi ako, hindi ako!," to which Mamangun replied, "Anong hindi ako?"
Before he (Ayson) could say anything, Mamangun fired his gun, hitting the man who turned out to be Contreras.
He (witness) approached the victim who was then lying on his left side unconscious. He brought down the
victim and they rushed him to the hospital where he died at about 10:00 o’clock that same evening.

Version of the defense

PO2 Mamangun, along with PO2 Cruz and PO2Diaz, denied the presence of Ayson at the rooftop during the
shooting incident. Corroborating one another, the three testified that they were the only ones at the scene of the
shooting, and that it was dark. They claimed that each of them, with Mamangun on the lead, went on separate
directions around a water tank. As they met each other at the other side of the tank, PO2 Cruz pointed to a

Mamangun vs People G.R. No. 149152

person crouching at the edge of the roof of the garage. Thinking that the person was the suspect they were
looking for, Mamangun chased said person. They announced that they were police officers but the person
continued to run in a crouching position until Mamangun caught up with him and shouted, "Pulis. Tigil,"
whereupon the person suddenly stopped, turned around, faced Mamangun, and raised a stainless steel pipe
towards the latter’s head but Mamangun was able to evade the attack. This prompted Mamangun to shoot the
person on the left arm. All three claimed that it was only at this point that PO2 Cruz and Diaz approached
Contreras who told them, "Hindi ako. Hindi ako." Mamangun went near Contreras and asked, "Why did you go
to the rooftop? You know there are policemen here." Contreras was thereafter brought to the hospital where he
died.

The Sandiganbayan came out with its decision 4 finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of only the
crime of Homicide. In so finding, the Sandiganbayan did not appreciate the presence of the aggravating
circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength to qualify the killing to
Murder. But even as the said court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the shooting was justified by self-defense,
it nonetheless ruled that the crime of Homicide was attended by an incomplete justifying circumstance of the
petitioner having acted in the performance of his duty as a policeman, and also appreciated in his favor the
generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Hence, this petition

Issue: Whether or not petitioner can avail of the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a lawful duty

Ruling: No. He cannot.

The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under paragraph 5, Article II, 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.

Concededly, the first requisite is present in this case. Petitioner, a police officer, was responding to a robbery-
holdup incident. His presence at the situs of the crime was in accordance with the performance of his duty.
However, proof that the shooting and ultimate death of Contreras was a necessary consequence of the due
performance of his duty as a policeman is essential to exempt him from criminal liability.

Petitioner’s pretense that Contreras struck him with a steel pipe is intriguing. As it is, petitioner did not report
the same to Police Investigator Banez when he reported back to the police station after the shooting incident. It
was only when a lead pipe was recovered from the scene and brought to the police station that petitioner
conveniently remembered Contreras trying to hit him with a pipe. Such a vital information could not have
escaped the petitioner’s mind. We are thus inclined to believe that the alleged actuation of Contreras, which
could have justified petitioner’s shooting him, was nothing but a concocted story to evade criminal liability.
Indeed, knowing that he shot Contreras, the least that the petitioner should have done was to bring with him to
the police station the very pipe with which Contreras tried to attack him. As borne by the evidence, however, it
was only after a police investigator referred to the scene that the lead pipe surfaced.

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. True, petitioner, as one of the policemen responding to a reported robbery then in
progress, was performing his duty as a police officer as well as when he was trying to effect the arrest of the
suspected robber and in the process, fatally shoot said suspect, albeit the wrong man. However, in the absence of
the equally necessary justifying circumstance that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence
of the due performance of such duty, there can only be incomplete justification, a privileged mitigating
circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the Revised Penal Code.

Mamangun vs People G.R. No. 149152

instant petition is DENIED and the assailed decision of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED in all respects.

Mamangun vs People G.R. No. 149152