PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs SPO1 ERNESTO ULEP
GR no. 132547 September 20, 2000
FACTS:
At around 2 o’clock in the morning of December 22, 1995, Buenaventura Wapili, was having a high fever and his brother-in-law heard him talking inside the room. The brother-in-law convinced him to come out and talk to him.Wapili went back to his room and for the second time his brother-in-law heard some disturbance as if the former was smashing the furniture. This time Wapili can no longer be pacified as he became wild and violent.
The brother-in-law sought help from their neighbors who attempted to tie Wapili with a rope but unfortunately it was unsuccessful. Their police neighbor knew the situation asked assistance from his co-police officers, until SPO1 Ermest Ulep, SPO1 Espadera and SPO1 Pillo arrived at the scene.
When these police officers saw Wapili armed with rattan stool, SPO 1 Ulep fired a warning shot in the air and told Wapili to put down his weapon or else they will shoot him. But Wapili instead continued advancing towards the police officers and retorted “fire”.
When Wapili was about 2 to 3 meters away from the police officer, Ulep shot him hitting various parts of his body. As Wapili slumped to the ground, Ulep came closer and pumped another shot into his head.
The trial court convicted Ulep, the accused-appelant beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. The accused appealed before the SC for review of his case and praying for acquittal mainly on the basis of his claim that the killing of the victim was in the course of the performance of his official duty as a police officer and in self-defense.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appelant be acquitted on the basis of justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty under Article 11 par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code.
HELD:
NO. The accused cannot be acquitted on the basis of Article 11, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code.
The accused has the burden to prove the presence of two (2) requisites to justify Article 11, par. 5 of the RPC. First, he acted in the performance of his duty or in the lawful exercise of the right or an office. Second, that the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
In the case at bar, the second requisite is absent or lacking. There are two stages occurred during the crime scene. The first stage was when Ulep made a warning shot in the air and told the victim to put down the weapon, but the latter unheeded so Ulep shot the various parts of his body causing the victim to fall off the ground. This act of the accused was lawful because it is in accord with his duty to calm down the violent moves of the victim being a police officer. However in the second stage wherein Ulep moved closer to the victim and shot his head while the latter was already incapable of threatening the life of the accused, the act of the latter is no longer lawful. It cannot be said that the fatal wound in the head of the victim was a necessary consequence of the accused appellant in the performance of his duty or lawful exercise of the right or office.