Facts:
In the early morning of December 22, 1995, at Mundog Subdivision, Poblacion Kidapawan, Cotabato, Buenaventura Wapili was experiencing a high fever and demonstrating erratic behavior. His brother-in-law, Dario Leydan, attempted to talk to him, but Wapili was incomprehensible. Wapili later exhibited violent behavior and chased Leydan naked. Leydan, with neighbors’ help, failed to restrain Wapili. Leydan sought help from policewoman Norma Plando, who contacted fellow officers SPO1 Ernesto Ulep, SPO1 Edilberto Espadera, and SPO2 Crispin Pillo.
At around 4:00 AM, the officers, armed with M-16 rifles, encountered Wapili. The officers claimed Wapili was armed with a bolo and a rattan stool, while witnesses claimed he only had a stool. SPO1 Ulep fired a warning shot and instructed Wapili to disarm, but Wapili continued advancing, daring the officers to shoot. Ulep shot Wapili multiple times, and as he lay on the ground, Ulep shot him in the head, resulting in his death. Dr. Roberto A. Omandac’s post-mortem examination indicated multiple close-range gunshot wounds, with the fatal headshot inflicted while Wapili was prone.
The Ombudsman for the Military charged Ulep with murder. Ulep pleaded not guilty, arguing self-defense. On October 28, 1997, the trial court convicted Ulep of murder, sentencing him to death and ordering him to indemnify Wapili’s heirs with P50,000. The trial court found the self-defense claim unconvincing, noting excessive force used when Wapili was already subdued.
Issues:
1. Whether Ulep’s actions constituted lawful performance of a duty or self-defense.
2. Whether the killing was attended by treachery, qualifying it as murder.
3. What the appropriate penalty should be, considering the circumstances.
Court’s Decision:
1. Lawful Performance of Duty and Self-Defense: The Supreme Court found that while Ulep initially acted within his duty by responding to the disturbance and shooting Wapili as he advanced, shooting Wapili in the head after he had fallen was excessive. The second stage of Ulep’s action, when he shot the prone Wapili, was not justified as necessary in the performance of duty or self-defense. The elements for self-defense were lacking as the alleged continued aggression by Wapili ceased when he was initially shot and became incapacitated.
2. Treachery: The Court disagreed with the trial court’s finding of treachery. Ulep’s warning shot and verbal order gave Wapili notice, negating the element of sudden and unexpected attack. Given this, the Court concluded that the evidence did not substantiate the claim of treachery, thus, the killing could not be classified as murder.
3. Appropriate Penalty: Given the incomplete justification (only the initial performance of duty was justified), the Supreme Court mitigated Ulep’s liability to homicide.
With mitigating circumstances such as voluntary surrender, the appropriate penalty was reduced from reclusion temporal to prision mayor. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Ulep was sentenced to an indeterminate term of four years, two months, and ten days of prision correccional medium to six years, four months, and twenty days of prision mayor minimum.
Doctrine:
1. Justifying Circumstance: For lawful performance of duty under Art. 11, par. 5 of The Revised Penal Code, the injury or offense must be a necessary consequence of the performance of duty.
2. Self-Defense: Requires unlawful aggression, necessary and reasonable means to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation by the defender.
3. Treachery: Must be proven as fully and convincingly as the crime itself, showing the means employed insured the execution without risk to the offender.
Class Notes:
– Key elements of self-defense: Unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means, lack of sufficient provocation (Article 11, Revised Penal Code).
– Lawful performance of duty: Action must be necessary and justified under the circumstances (Article 11, par. 5).
– Treachery: Sudden attack ensuring execution without risk to oneself, not inferred but proven.
Statutory Provisions:
– Article 11; Justifying circumstances (especially paragraph 5)
– Article 69; Rules on incomplete justifying circumstances
– Article 249; Penalty for Homicide
– Article 246; Penalty and definition of Murder (with qualifiers like treachery)
– Indeterminate Sentence Law; Guidelines for imposing indeterminate penalties
Historical Background:
The case reflects the tension between law enforcement duties and human rights in the Philippines, highlighting procedural propriety and the use of force standards. The decision clarifies the boundaries within which police officers must operate, countering a ‘trigger-happy’ culture and ensuring accountability even in complex, high-pressure situations, thereby strengthening rule of law adherence during a period marked by significant law enforcement challenges.
Leave a Reply