Title
Supreme Court
Yapyuco y Enriquez vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 120744-46
Decision Date
Jun 25, 2012
Police officers and volunteers ambushed a jeepney, killing one and injuring another, claiming duty; convicted of homicide and attempted homicide due to excessive force, no conspiracy or premeditation proven.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 150711)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Petitioners: Law enforcers and barangay officials—Salvador Yapyuco, Jr., Generoso Cunanan, Jr., Ernesto Puno (INP/PNP members), Mario D. Reyes, Andres S. Reyes, Virgilio A. Manguerra (CHDF members/barangay captains).
    • Respondents: Sandiganbayan (trial court) and the People of the Philippines.
  • Shooting Incident (April 5, 1988, Barangay Quebiawan, San Fernando, Pampanga)
    • Victims: Leodevince Licup (died April 7), Noel Villanueva (survived multiple gunshot wounds), four other passengers unharmed.
    • Circumstances: Petitioners, responding to a tip about armed rebels, took positions along a curve and opened fire at a green Toyota Tamaraw jeepney. Evidence included eyewitnesses (Flores, Salangsang, Villanueva), ballistics (11 bullet holes in jeepney), medico-legal reports, and administrative‐case documents.
  • Trial Proceedings
    • Charges filed in three Informations:
      • No. 16612—Murder (resulted in homicide conviction)
      • No. 16613—Frustrated murder (acquitted)
      • No. 16614—Multiple attempted murder (resulted in attempted homicide conviction)
    • Evidence: Direct testimony, sketches, ballistics and medical reports, extrajudicial/joint counter-affidavits, petitioners’ testimony and NAPOLCOM administrative records.
    • Sandiganbayan Decision (June 30, 1995): Found petitioners guilty as co-principals of homicide (Licup) and attempted homicide (Villanueva); acquitted them of attempted murder.

Issues:

  • Justification and Defenses
    • Whether petitioners were in lawful performance of duty (Art. 11(5), Revised Penal Code).
    • Whether a mistake of fact (belief victims were armed NPAs) negates criminal intent.
  • Criminal Liability
    • Whether conspiracy and co-principal liability were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
    • Whether petitioners’ acts show intent to kill or only reckless imprudence.
  • Penalty and Damages
    • Proper classification and application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
    • Appropriate quantum for actual, moral, and exemplary damages.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.