A.M. No. P-137 - De Dios vs. Alejo

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-137)

Factual background and sequence of events

On the early morning of 22 December 1995, Buenaventura Wapili, suffering from fever and apparently delirious, acted violently and ran naked through the subdivision. After failed attempts by relatives and neighbors to restrain him, neighbors sought police assistance. At about 4:00 a.m., SPO1 Ulep with SPO1 Espadera and SPO2 Pillo arrived armed with M-16 rifles. There is a factual dispute whether Wapili was armed with a bolo (police claim) or only a rattan stool (relatives’ testimony). Ulep fired a warning shot and ordered Wapili to drop his weapon; Wapili allegedly shouted “pusila!” (“fire!”) and continued to advance. When approximately two to three meters away, Ulep shot Wapili multiple times; after Wapili fell, Ulep approached and fired an additional shot to the head, which caused evisceration of brain tissue.

Medical and forensic findings

The municipal health officer, Dr. Roberto A. Omandac, performed the post-mortem and recorded five gunshot wounds: right parietal head wound with fractures and evisceration of brain tissue; a right cheek wound; an abdominal wound with powder burns; suprapubic entry and a right lumbar exit; and two wounds on the right thigh/buttocks with powder burns. Powder burns indicated some shots were fired at close range (within approximately 24 inches). Dr. Omandac concluded the fatal head wound causing instantaneous death was inflicted while the victim was in a lying position. Cause of death: multiple gunshot wounds.

Trial court disposition and reasoning

The Regional Trial Court convicted SPO1 Ulep of murder, sentenced him to death, ordered indemnity of P50,000.00 to the heirs, and costs. The trial court found that while the initial shots may have been in response to aggression, the subsequent close-range shot to the back of the head after the victim was already on the ground was unnecessary and demonstrated a determined effort to kill, negating the claim of self-defense. The trial court also expressed incredulity that the two companion officers would merely stand by and not intervene, weighing this against appellant’s credibility.

Appellant’s claimed defenses and burden of proof

On appeal, Ulep contended he acted in the performance of official duty and in self-defense. Because he admitted the killing, he bore the burden of establishing legal justification clearly and convincingly. The Court reiterated the rule (People v. Cario) that an accused who admits killing must prove the justifying circumstance by the quantitative and qualitative strength of his evidence and cannot rely on the prosecution’s weaknesses.

Justifying circumstance of performance of duty — legal test and application

Under Article 11, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, two requisites must concur for fulfillment of duty to justify criminal action: (1) the actor must have acted in performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and (2) the injury caused must be the necessary consequence of such performance. The Court found the first requisite satisfied because the officers responded to a lawful call to restore order. The second requisite, necessity of the result, was not satisfied in full: although the initial use of lethal force to repel an advancing aggressor could be justified, the Court concluded that continued shooting after the victim had fallen and was prostrate was unnecessary to accomplish the lawful duty and therefore exceeded the scope of necessary force.

Self-defense analysis

The Court applied the well‑established three elements for self-defense: (a) unlawful aggression by the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation by the defender. The Court found no self-defense at the critical moment of the fatal head shot because unlawful aggression had ceased when Wapili was lying prone, bleeding, and likely unconscious; therefore, the fatal shot was not necessary to prevent an ongoing aggression.

Treachery issue and qualification of the offense

The trial court had convicted under the theory of murder, implying treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The Supreme Court disagreed that treachery was proven. Treachery requires proof that the offender employed means or methods that directly and specially insured execution without risk to himself, and it cannot be inferred. The presence of a warning shot and explicit command to drop weapons, and the fact that the accused went to the scene in performance of duty, undermined the theory that the killing was committed by means that insured execution without risk. Given the prosecution’s failure to prove treachery beyond reasonable doubt, the killing could not be qualified as murder on that basis.

Incomplete justification and mitigating circumstances

The Court found an incomplete justifying circumstance under Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code because only the majority (in this case one of two) of the conditions under Article 11(5) was present. Article 69 provides for reduction of penalty by one or two degrees when the deed is not wholly excusable. The Court also credited the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender (Ulep immediately reported and surrendered at police headquarters). No aggravating circumstances were found to offset mitigation.

Penalty determination and application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law

Article 249 prescribes reclusion temporal for homicide (range 12 years and 1 day to 20 ye

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-137)

Case Citation and Panel

Reported at 395 Phil. 78, En Banc; G.R. No. 132547; decided September 20, 2000.
Decision penned by Justice Bellosillo.
Concurring Justices: Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and De Leon, Jr.
Justice Ynares‑Santiago noted as on leave.
Trial court decision referenced: Decision by Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano, RTC‑Br. 17, Kidapawan, Cotabato, promulgated 28 October 1997.

Procedural Posture

Information for murder filed by the Office of the Ombudsman for the Military against SPO1 Ernesto Ulep.
Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed he acted in self-defense and in the performance of official duty.
Trial court convicted Ulep of murder and sentenced him to death; ordered indemnity of P50,000.00 and costs.
Because the trial court imposed death, the case was subject to automatic review by this Court.
On appeal, accused‑appellant sought acquittal primarily on the grounds of performance of official duty and self‑defense.

Factual Background — Chronology of Events

Early morning, 22 December 1995: Buenaventura Wapili (sometimes spelled "Wapille") experienced high fever and was heard talking insensibly inside his room at Mundog Subdivision, Poblacion Kidapawan, Cotabato.
Dario Leydan, Wapili's brother‑in‑law, attempted to pacify Wapili; Wapili said he "could not really understand himself," returned to his room, and turned off the lights.
Disturbance heard inside the room; Wapili smashed furniture; Leydan called Pastor Bonid to "pray over" Wapili but they could not enter as Wapili became violent.
Wapili bolted out naked and chased Leydan; Leydan and two neighbors unsuccessfully attempted to tie him with a rope due to Wapili's greater size and strength.
Leydan sought assistance from neighbor policewoman Norma Plando after Wapili banged Plando's parked vehicle.
Plando used a hand‑held radio to contact SPO1 Ernesto Ulep, SPO1 Edilberto Espadera, and SPO2 Crispin Pillo, members of the PNP assigned near the Roman Catholic Church of Kidapawan.
Around 4:00 a.m., Ulep, Espadera and Pillo arrived in an Anfra police service jeep, armed with M‑16 rifles, and alighted when they saw the naked Wapili approaching.

Disputed Material Facts: Weapons and Confrontation

Dispute over what Wapili carried: police testified he had a bolo and a rattan stool; relatives and neighbors testified he had no bolo, only a rattan stool.
Ulep fired a warning shot into the air and ordered Wapili to put down his weapons or they would shoot him.
Wapili purportedly retorted "pusila!" ("fire!") and continued advancing.
When approximately two to three meters away, Ulep shot Wapili with his M‑16 rifle, hitting him in various parts of the body.
As Wapili slumped to the ground, Ulep approached and "pumped another bullet into his head and literally blew his brains out," according to the trial record.

Forensic and Medical Evidence (Post‑Mortem)

Dr. Roberto A. Omandac, Municipal Health Officer of Kidapawan, conducted the post‑mortem and found five (5) gunshot wounds:
- Head: gunshot wound on the right parietal area with fractures of the right temporoparietal bones and evisceration of brain tissues; involvement of right zygomatic bone and right mandible (lateral aspect).
- Chest/Back: powder burns on the right posterior chest.
- Abdomen: gunshot wound on the right upper quadrant (0.5 cm entry) with multiple powder burns around the wound and right lumbar area exit; gunshot wound on the suprapubic area (point of entry).
- Extremities: gunshot wound on right thigh, upper third, anterior aspect (0.5 cm entry) with powder burns and right buttocks (0.5 cm exit); gunshot wound on right thigh, upper third, posterolateral aspect.
Cause of death: multiple gunshot wounds.
Dr. Omandac concluded some shots were fired at close range, perhaps within twenty‑four inches, based on powder burns.
Dr. Omandac also concluded the head wound that caused instantaneous death was inflicted while the victim was "in a lying position."

Trial Court Findings and Ruling

Trial court convicted Ulep of murder and imposed the death penalty; ordered P50,000.00 indemnity and costs.
Trial court reasoning (as quoted):
- The means employed by the accused to prevent or repel the alleged aggression was not reasonable because Wapili was already on the ground, so there was no necessity to "pump another shot on the back portion of the victim's head."
- The gravity of wounds belied Ulep's claim of self‑defense and indicated a determined effort to kill.
- The accused had other options to prevent further aggression; witnesses Espadera and Pillo allegedly did nothing, which the trial court found unbelievable.
Trial court promulgated judgment 28 October 1997.

Issues on Appeal Presented by Accused‑Appellant

Whether the killing was justified as the performance of official