G.R. No. 132547 - People vs. Ulep

On 22 December 1995, at around 2:00 AM, Buenaventura Wapili, suffering from a high fever and talking insensibly in his room at Mundog Subdivision, Poblacion Kidapawan, Cotabato, exhibited unusual behavior.
His brother-in-law, Dario Leydan, attempted to engage him by persuading him to come out of his room, but Wapili indicated an inability to understand himself, later returning to his room and turning off the lights.

Shortly after, the room’s lights turned on again and a disturbance was heard, suggesting that Wapili was smashing furniture.
Unable to pacify him, Leydan called Pastor Bonid of the Alliance Church of Kidapawan for prayer assistance, but Wapili’s wild and violent behavior prevented entry into the room.
Wapili abruptly emerged from his room naked and pursued Leydan, prompting neighbors to assist in trying to subdue him with a rope; however, their efforts failed due to Wapili’s superior physical strength.

Leydan sought help from a neighbor and policewoman, Norma Plando, who provided assistance by contacting the police via a hand-held radio.
The call for help reached police officers SPO1 Ernesto Ulep, SPO1 Edilberto Espadera, and SPO2 Crispin Pillo, who were then assigned to secure the nearby Roman Catholic Church of Kidapawan.
At approximately 4:00 AM, the three officers arrived in an Anfra police service jeep, armed with M-16 rifles, and disembarked when they observed the naked, agitated Wapili approaching.

Dispute arose regarding the weapon Wapili allegedly possessed; police accounts stated he was armed with a bolo and a rattan stool, while relatives and neighbors maintained that he only had a rattan stool.
SPO1 Ulep fired a warning shot into the air and commanded Wapili to lower his weapon(s) or be shot.
Upon Wapili’s retort of “pusila!” (“fire!”) and his continued advance, with his distance narrowing to about two to three meters, Ulep shot him with his M-16 rifle.
After the initial shots caused Wapili to slump to the ground, Ulep approached him and fired an additional bullet into his head, causing severe cranial damage and leading to instantaneous death.

A post mortem examination revealed that Wapili sustained five gunshot wounds – one on the right portion of the head, one on the right cheek, one on the abdomen, and two on the right thigh, accompanied by powder burns indicating a close-range firing (approximately within twenty-four inches).
The wound in the head, which had catastrophic consequences, was determined to be inflicted at a point when the victim was already in a lying position and no longer posed a threat.

The Office of the Ombudsman for the Military filed an Information for murder against SPO1 Ulep.
At arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty and maintained that his actions were in self-defense.
On 28 October 1997, the trial court convicted him of murder and sentenced him to death, also ordering an indemnity payment of P50,000.00 to the victim’s heirs and costs.
The trial court’s finding hinged on the fact that the additional shot, particularly aimed at the victim’s head after he was on the ground, was unnecessary and demonstrated an intent to kill rather than mere self-defense.

On appeal, the accused contended that his actions were committed in the course of his official duty as a police officer and in self-defense, thereby transferring the burden of proving his justification.
The Court examined whether the criteria for legal justification under Art. 11, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code were met, particularly whether the injury inflicted was the necessary consequence of executing his duty.

Whether the accused, SPO1 Ernesto Ulep, acted in self-defense and in fulfillment of his official duty when he fired on Buenaventura Wapili.

Examination of whether the initial aggressive act by Wapili warranted the use of deadly force.
Consideration of whether the subsequent shot to the head was a necessary and proportionate response once the threat had been neutralized.

Whether the essential requisites for invoking justification under Art. 11, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code were present.

Determination of whether the action of shooting Wapili was the necessary consequence of performing a required police duty.
Analysis of the failure to prove that the continuously lethal use of force was justified.

Whether the additional gunshot, which struck Wapili on the head after he was already subdued, constituted treachery or an excessive use of force beyond self-defense.

Consideration of whether the method of execution inferred a deliberate intent to kill beyond what was necessary to protect life.

How the failure to prove complete justification impacts the criminal liability of the accused, particularly shifting from a murder charge to a charge of homicide with mitigating circumstances.