CASE NO.

37
Other factors affecting Intent: Mistake of Fact
Yapyuco vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 120744-46

Main Point:
Mistake of fact rests on the inquiry into the mistaken belief of the defendant, and it does
not look at all to the belief or state of mind of any other person. It also requires that (a)
that the mistake be honest and reasonable; (b) that it be a matter of fact; and (c) that it
negate the culpability required to commit the crime or the existence of the mental state
which the statute prescribes with respect to an element of the offense.
Facts:
The accused-petitioners were members of the Integrated National Police
(INP) stationed at the Sindalan Substation in San Fernando, barangay captains of
Quebiawan and De, Carmen members of the Civil Home Defense Force (CHDF) or
civilian volunteer officers in Barangays Quebiawan, Del Carmen and
Telebastagan. They allegedly received information concerning a reported presence of
armed NPA members in Quebiawan. It was so unfortunate that the Tamaraw jeepney
conveying the victims would make an inevitable turn to which the accused all
await. Believing that the victims were the armed NPA members, the accused opened
fire to the passengers of the said Tamaraw. Such shooting incident on April 5, 1988 in
Barangay Quebiawan, San Fernando, Pampanga caused the death of Leodevince
Licup (Licup) and injured Noel Villanueva (Villanueva). The accused were all charged
with murder, multiple attempted murder and frustrated murder. Upon conviction,
Yapyuco disputed that he cannot be exonerated since he responded to the scene in
fulfillment of his duty as a member of the police force and he invoked mistake of fact as
caused by his co-accused in the belief that the victims are members of the NPA.
Issue 1:
Whether the principle of Mistake of Fact is applicable in the instant case.
Issue 2:
Whether the petitioner can be award with the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of
duty or lawful exercise of a right or office.
Answer 1:
No, the principle of Mistake of fact is not applicable. In the context of criminal law, a
mistake of fact is a misapprehension of a fact which, if true, would have justified the act
or omission which is the subject of the prosecution. Generally, a reasonable mistake of
fact is a defense to a charge of crime where it negates the intent component of the
crime. It may be a defense even if the offense charged requires proof of only general
intent. The inquiry is into the mistaken belief of the defendant, and it does not look at all
to the belief or state of mind of any other person. A proper invocation of this defense
requires (a) that the mistake be honest and reasonable; (b) that it be a matter of
fact; and (c) that it negate the culpability required to commit the crime or the existence
of the mental state which the statute prescribes with respect to an element of the
offense. In the present case, he relied merely on the statement of his co-accused
therefore it cannot be invoked

Answer 2:
No, he cannot be awarded of the justifying circumstance. The said justifying
circumstance rests on proof that (a) the accused acted in the performance of his duty or
in the lawful exercise of his right or office, and (b) the injury caused or the offense
committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the
lawful exercise of such right or office. In the present case, their duty is supposed to be
the validation of the information that they received and not to immediately fire at the
victims. Bloodless arrest can even be achieved when they have validated the
information. Failing to meet the requisites, the petitioner cannot be award of the
justifying circumstance.

Conclusion:
Yapyuco who merely relied on the statement of his co-accused cannot invoked mistake
of fact since it needs to be a personal belief and not the belief of others.