CASE DIGEST: FULFILLMENT OF DUTY

SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan and

Office of the Special Prosecutor (G.R. No/
148431, July 28, 2005)
Facts:
Police officers CABANLIG, PADILLA, ABESAMIS,
MERCADO and ESTEBAN were all charged for
the MURDER of Jimmy Valino before the
Sandiganbayan. Jimmy Valino was a detained
prisoner who was escorted to retrieve the effects
of the crime to the place where he hid the same.
Aboard the police vehicle, Jimmy Valino suddenly
grabbed the M16 rifle and about to jump out of the
jeep. CABANLIG shouted “hoy!”and without
issuing any warning of any sort, CABANLIG fired
at Valino, hitting his head, left side of the chest
and left lower back.
CABANLIG admitted shooting Valino during the
trial. However, Cabanlig justified the shooting as
an act of self-defense and performance of duty.
Nevertheless, Sandiganbayan CONVICTED
CABANLIG but acquitted his 4 companions.
Upon appeal, the SUPREME COURT eventually
ACQUITTED CABANLIG
RULING 1: Because the killing was justified and
that the same was done in the fulfillment of duty
A policeman in the performance of duty is
JUSTIFIED in using such force as is reasonably
(and absolutely)necessary to (1) secure and
detain the offender, (2) overcome his resistance,
(3) prevent his escape, (4) recapture him if he
escapes, and (4) protect himself from bodily harm.
(People v. Oanis, 74 Phil 257 [1943]; People v.
Lagata (83 Phil 150 [1949]).
Unlike in self-defense where unlawful aggression
is an element, in performance of duty, unlawful
aggression from the victim is NOT a requisite.
In People v. Delima,(46 Phil 738 [1992]) where
the killing of a fugitive who lunged at a policeman
with a bamboo-makeshift lance, the SC ruled that
the same was done in the fulfillment of duty. The
fugitive’s unlawful aggression, in that case, had
already ceased when the policeman killed him,
however, the policeman's act of shooting at him is
justified because he was running away from him
when he was shot. Ordinarily, it may appear that
the policeman, acting in the fulfillment of duty, is
the aggressor, but his aggression is NOT
UNLAWFUL, it being necessary to fulfill his duty.
But IF the policeman was a PRIVATE PERSON,
not in the performance of duty, and the same
situation was given, there would be NO self-
defense because there would be NO unlawful
aggression on the part of the deceased.
RULING 2: Because Cabanlig did not exceed the
fulfillment of duty when he IMMEDIATELY SHOT
Valino without issuing a warning.
The duty to issue a warning is not absolutely
mandated at all times and at all cost to the
detriment of the life of law enforcers. The directive
to issue a warning contemplates a situation where
several options are still available to the law
enforcers. In exceptional circumstances where the
threat to the life of a law enforcer is already
imminent AND there is NO OTHER option but to
use force to subdue the offender, the law
enforcer’s failure to issue a warning is
EXCUSABLE.
RULING 3: Was there an OVERKILL?
There was none.