Case Summary (G.R. No. 252834)
Key Dates (case chronology relevant to the record)
Robbery occurred: 24 September 1992.
Apprehension of suspects (including Valino): 28 September 1992.
Arraignment and plea of accused police officers: 15 December 1993.
Sandiganbayan conviction and subsequent proceedings are reflected in the record and were the subject of the Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court.
Charge against the accused
An amended information charged Cabanlig and four fellow police officers with murder for the killing of Jimmy Valino while Valino was in police custody and allegedly being taken to the place where he had concealed stolen items. The information alleged conspiracy, intent to kill, treachery, evident premeditation, advantage of nighttime and an uninhabited place, and use of firearms.
Arraignment and plea
All five accused police officers pleaded not guilty on 15 December 1993.
Prosecution’s factual narrative
The prosecution’s version relates that after a robbery on 24 September 1992, police arrested three suspects on 28 September 1992, including Valino. When two recovered items were still missing, Cabanlig escorted Valino (instead of the other two suspects) with four other uniformed and armed policemen to retrieve the missing items in Barangay Sinasahan. The defendants rode in the open rear compartment of an Isuzu pick‑up jeep. While the jeep was negotiating a bumpy road at dusk, Valino allegedly grabbed SPO2 Mercado’s M16 Armalite rifle and jumped out of the jeep. Mercado cried out “hoy!” and Cabanlig, who admitted he saw Valino grab the rifle, immediately fired one shot and, after two to three seconds, fired four additional shots. Valino did not return fire; he sustained three gunshot wounds (head, left chest, left lower back) and died. The following morning Mercado allegedly told SPO4 Lacanilao that they had “salvaged” someone, which the prosecution referenced as corroborative of foul play.
Defense’s factual narrative
Cabanlig admitted firing the shots but invoked self‑defense and performance (fulfillment) of duty. The co‑accused denied any conspiracy or plan to summarily execute Valino; Mercado denied making the statement attributed to him. The defense emphasized that Valino grabbed a high‑powered service rifle (M16) and that the shooting occurred in circumstances of imminent danger to the policemen.
Sandiganbayan ruling and sentencing
The Sandiganbayan acquitted Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado and Esteban for lack of evidence of conspiracy or summary execution. Cabanlig was convicted not of murder but of homicide on the ground that he exceeded the bounds of proper performance of duty by shooting Valino without issuing a warning; the court held that the evidence did not establish the aggravating circumstances necessary to elevate the crime to murder. The Sandiganbayan sentenced Cabanlig to an indeterminate term corresponding to homicide and ordered P50,000 civil indemnity to Valino’s heirs. One Sandiganbayan justice dissented at the motion for reconsideration, arguing that imminent danger justified acquittal.
Issues presented to the Supreme Court
(1) Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding that the defense of fulfillment of duty was incomplete; (2) whether Cabanlig could invoke self‑defense or defense of a stranger to justify his actions; and (3) whether the Sandiganbayan erred in sentencing and ordering indemnity.
Legal standards applied by the Supreme Court
The Court reiterated that multiple justifying circumstances can be invoked but the tribunal must determine which is applicable. It summarized the elements of self‑defense: (a) unlawful aggression; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation by the person defending. The requisites for fulfillment of duty are: (a) the accused acted in the performance of duty or lawful exercise of office; and (b) the injury or offense was the necessary consequence of the due performance of that duty. The Court reiterated jurisprudence that a policeman may use reasonably necessary force to prevent escape, recapture an escapee, and protect himself or others, but that unnecessary or wanton violence is not justified. The Court also noted that while self‑defense and fulfillment of duty are distinct, imminent danger to the policeman or a stranger may render the use of force reasonable and thus satisfy the second requisite of fulfillment of duty.
Application of the law to the facts: justification under fulfillment of duty
The Supreme Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan that the policemen were performing their duty when escorting Valino. Unlike the trial court, however, the Supreme Court found that fulfillment of duty was the applicable and complete justification for Cabanlig’s use of deadly force. The Court emphasized that Valino did not merely attempt to flee; he seized an M16 service rifle — a high‑velocity, fully capable assault rifle — and jumped from the vehicle, creating an immediate threat to the lives of the police officers confined in the rear of an open jeep with limited exit options. Given the weapon’s lethality (30‑round capacity, semiautomatic/automatic capability, effective at considerable ranges and deadly at close quarters), the Court concluded that warning or delay would have been futile and would have exposed the officers to grave risk. The Court recognized that the General Rules of Engagement and the general policy that warnings should precede the use of force are important, but held that the duty to warn is not absolute when imminent death or serious bodily harm to law enforcers is apparent and immediate: in such exceptional circumstances a warning is excusable.
Reasoning on sequencing of shots and forensic evidence
The Court addressed the Sandiganbayan’s reliance on the location of wounds to infer that Valino was shot in the back and thus not facing the police. Noting the medico‑legal and necropsy reports, the Court observed that one entrance wound was on the left chest (about three inches below the left clavicle), which reasonably indicates that Valino at some point faced or partially faced the policemen. The doctors could not determine which shot was inflicted first, but the chest wound’s presence created reasonable doubt about the trial court’s inference that Valino was only shot in the back. The Court held that the chest wound is consistent with Valino being, at least for a moment, in a position to threaten the policemen, thereby supporting the conclusion that Cabanlig fired in response to an imminent and grave danger.
Holding, disposition and ancillary recommendations
The Supreme Court found merit in the petition, reversed the Sandiganbayan’s conviction of homicide, and acquitted SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig on the ground that the killing was justified as fulfillment of duty under the circumstances. The Court ordered Cabanlig’s
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 252834)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal of the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division Decision dated 11 May 1999 and Resolution dated 2 May 2001.
- Sandiganbayan had convicted SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig of homicide in Criminal Case No. 19436, sentencing him to the indeterminate penalty of four months arresto mayor (minimum) to two years and four months prision correccional (maximum) and ordering payment of P50,000 to the heirs of Jimmy Valino.
- Sandiganbayan had acquitted co-accused SPO1 Carlos Padilla, PO2 Meinhart Abesamis, SPO2 Lucio Mercado and SPO1 Rady Esteban.
- The Supreme Court (First Division) reviews the Sandiganbayan’s findings and rulings and renders a decision, including directions for immediate release if no other lawful grounds to hold the accused exist.
Title and Parties
- Petitioner: SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig.
- Respondents: Sandiganbayan and the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
- Victim/Deceased: Jimmy Valino.
- Co-accused (acquitted by Sandiganbayan): SPO1 Carlos Padilla, PO2 Meinhart Abesamis, SPO2 Lucio Mercado, SPO1 Rady Esteban.
Charge and Amended Information
- Accused charged with murder in an amended information alleging:
- Date: on or about September 28, 1992.
- Place: Municipality of Penaranda, Province of Nueva Ecija.
- Accused were public officers (members of the Philippine National Police) conspiring with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, taking advantage of nighttime and uninhabited place, use of firearms, and without justifiable cause.
- Allegation: they attacked, assaulted and shot Jimmy Valino, hitting him several times at vital parts which caused his death while Valino was detained for robbery and under police custody, having been killed while being taken to the place where he allegedly concealed the effects of the crime.
- Offense charged: Contrary to law (murder).
Arraignment and Plea
- Date: 15 December 1993.
- Plea: The accused (Cabanlig, Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado, Esteban) pleaded not guilty.
Version of the Prosecution — Factual Narrative
- Robbery occurred in Penaranda on 24 September 1992; three suspects (Jordan Magat, Randy Reyes, Jimmy Valino) apprehended on 28 September 1992; most stolen items recovered except a flower vase and a small radio.
- Cabanlig asked where the missing items were; Reyes said they were at his house; Cabanlig intended to bring Reyes and Magat to retrieve the items but Valino said he had moved them to another location; Cabanlig decided to bring Valino instead, leaving Magat and Reyes.
- Around 6:30 p.m., five armed uniformed policemen (Cabanlig, Padilla, Mercado, Abesamis, Esteban) escorted Valino to Barangay Sinasahan aboard an Isuzu pick-up jeep configured like a jeepney with an open rear and a metal partition; two long benches were in the main body; there was no opening or door between the driver compartment and the main body; the rear was the only means of ingress/egress.
- Seating arrangement: Cabanlig, Mercado, Esteban seated with Valino inside main body; Esteban behind Abesamis on left bench; Valino was not handcuffed and seated between Cabanlig (left of Valino) and Mercado (right of Valino); Mercado nearest rear opening.
- As the jeep crossed the Philippine National Railway bridge on a bumpy road, Valino suddenly grabbed Mercado’s M16 Armalite and jumped out of the jeep; Mercado had been scratching his head and reaching back when Valino seized the rifle; Mercado shouted “hoy!” and Cabanlig, facing the rear, saw Valino take the rifle.
- Cabanlig fired immediately without any warning: one shot with one foot on the running board, then after two to three seconds fired four more successive shots; Valino did not fire any shot.
- Time: around 7:00 p.m., at dusk (“nag-aagaw ang dilim at liwanag”).
- After the shots, Cabanlig checked Valino’s pulse, found none, and declared him dead; Valino sustained three mortal wounds—back of the head, left side of the chest, left lower back.
- Padilla and Esteban remained with the body while Cabanlig, Mercado and Abesamis went to a funeral parlor.
- The next morning, SPO4 Segismundo Lacanilao of the Cabanatuan Police, investigating another case, encountered Mercado, who allegedly said he and his fellow policemen “salvaged” (summarily executed) a person; when Lacanilao asked identity, Mercado said “Jimmy Valino” and immediately left.
Version of the Defense
- Cabanlig admitted shooting Valino but claimed justification by self-defense and performance of duty.
- Mercado denied telling Lacanilao that they had “salvaged” Valino.
- All accused denied conspiring to kill or summarily execute Valino.
- Cabanlig relied principally on fulfillment of duty and also invoked self-defense/defense of a stranger; he asserted imminent danger from Valino grabbing the M16.
Sandiganbayan’s Findings and Ruling (Trial Court)
- Sandiganbayan acquitted co-accused (Padilla, Abesamis, Mercado, Esteban) for lack of evidence of conspiracy or summary execution.
- Because Cabanlig admitted shooting, burden shifted to him to establish circumstances that would relieve or mitigate responsibility.
- Sandiganbayan held that:
- Cabanlig could not invoke self-defense or defense of a stranger properly in the circumstances.
- The only applicable defense was fulfillment of duty, but Cabanlig failed to prove that the shooting was the necessary consequence of due performance of duty.
- While it was the policemen’s duty to stop an escaping detainee, Cabanlig exceeded proper bounds by shooting without warning when the use of force could have been preceded by warning or other means.
- No qualifying circumstance for murder was present; conviction should be for homicide only.
- Disposition: Cabanlig found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and sentenced to indeterminate penalty (4 months arresto mayor to 2 years 4 months prision correccional), to pay P50,000 to heirs and costs; co-accused acquitted.
- On motion for reconsideration, Associate Justice Anacleto D. Badoy Jr. dissented at the Sandiganbayan level, arguing imminent danger justified acquittal because Valino, at approximately three feet, could have sprayed them with bullets and a warning shot was unnecessary.
- Final Sandiganbayan resolution denied reconsideration by 4–1 vote, affirming conviction.
Issues Raised by Petitioner on Appeal
- Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in ruling that Cabanlig’s defense of fulfillment of duty was incomplete.
- Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in ruling that Cabanlig could not invoke self-defense/defense of a stranger.
- Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in sentencing Cabanlig to imprisonment and ordering payment of P50,000 to heirs of Valino.
Legal Principles Identified by the Supreme Court Majority
- An accu