Title
Mamangun vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 149152
Decision Date
Feb 2, 2007
Police officer Rufino Mamangun mistakenly shot and killed Gener Contreras during a robbery pursuit. The Supreme Court convicted Mamangun of Homicide, rejecting claims of self-defense and duty performance, citing lack of necessity and unlawful aggression.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 149152)

Factual Background

On September 12, 1994, Mamangun was charged with Murder for the shooting of Gener Contreras, allegedly occurring on July 31, 1992, while responding to a reported robbery. Mamangun entered a plea of "Not Guilty" and proceeded to a trial where both prosecution and defense presented eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence regarding the incident.

Incident Overview

During the evening of the incident, Mamangun and fellow officers responded to a reported robbery-holdup. After obtaining permission from a homeowner, they proceeded to a rooftop where they encountered a man they believed to be the suspect. Mamangun, leading the group, fired his weapon, fatally striking Contreras, who was misidentified as the suspect. The autopsy indicated that Contreras died from multiple gunshot wounds.

Testimonies Presented

The prosecution's case was supported by eyewitness Crisanto Ayson, who claimed to have witnessed the shooting and described Mamangun firing upon Contreras, who was pleading his innocence. The defense presented a different narrative, asserting that Mamangun shot Contreras in self-defense after the latter allegedly threatened him with a steel pipe.

Sandiganbayan's Decision

On January 19, 2001, the Sandiganbayan convicted Mamangun of Homicide, ruling that although he acted in the performance of his duty, his actions were not justified under the law. The court did not find sufficient aggravating circumstances to classify the act as Murder but acknowledged the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete justification due to Mamangun's role as a police officer.

Legal Standards and Self-Defense Claim

The petitioner contended that the shooting was justified under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code as it was done in the performance of his duties. However, the Court did not accept this argument, concluding that self-defense was not established due to the absence of unlawful aggression from Contreras at the time of the shooting.

Assessment of Credibility

The Court deemed the defense's claim of self-defense self-serving and found inconsistencies

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.