Title
Torres vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. L-65913
Decision Date
Jul 28, 1986
A police officer shot and killed a motorcyclist who lunged at him with a knife during a confrontation. Convicted of homicide, the court found excessive force used, but mitigated by self-defense elements and voluntary surrender. Penalty reduced.
conviction
homicide
excessive force

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-65913)

Factual Background

Petitioner joined the Metropolitan Police Force on March 16, 1980. On April 5, 1982, in the afternoon, petitioner and another policeman, Corporal Ruben Onelia, were assigned to direct traffic at the intersection of C. Jose Street and EDSA in Pasay City. At about 5:30 p.m., petitioner observed the victim driving his motorcycle in a zigzag manner along C. Jose Street and then along EDSA. Petitioner called the motorist’s attention and commanded him to pull over. The victim questioned the apprehension, and petitioner approached, pointed out that he was driving in a zigzag manner, and testified that the victim appeared either drunk or high on drugs due to his red eyes.

The confrontation escalated. Petitioner required the victim to produce his driver’s license, but the victim refused to hand it over and responded that he was not violating any traffic regulation. Petitioner threatened to bring him to the police station and moved closer after insisting that he should go with petitioner. The victim refused. When petitioner reiterated the command, the victim retorted that petitioner was delaying him in his work, but petitioner continued attempting to force him to go to the police station.

Petitioner then testified that the victim defied him by pulling out a bladed knife known as a “tusok,” approximately six inches long including the handle. According to petitioner, the victim lunged at him while petitioner was about two meters away. Petitioner moved back, drew his gun, and warned the victim that he would shoot if he attacked again. Petitioner noticed the victim was not standing steadily. When petitioner attempted a second thrust, petitioner claimed that the victim lost balance and, at that instant, petitioner shot him at the back. Immediately thereafter, petitioner hailed a taxi and brought the victim to the Pasay City General Hospital. Petitioner then left for police headquarters to surrender, placing himself under the custody of Colonel Alfredo Angeles, chief of the Investigation Division. Petitioner turned over his service revolver and the knife carried by the victim.

The victim died and was autopsied by Dr. Renato C. Bautista. The autopsy report stated that the cause of death was hemorrhage, profuse, secondary to a gunshot wound on the back, left side.

Procedural History and Sandiganbayan’s Ruling

Petitioner was charged with homicide two days later, or on April 7, 1982, and pleaded not guilty on that date. The Sandiganbayan convicted him on December 12, 1983. In its assessment, the Sandiganbayan found that the killing was not attended by any justifying circumstance. It considered that the “true happenings” preceding the shooting negated self-defense or fulfillment of duty. It also held that petitioner could, at most, benefit from mitigating circumstances consisting of sufficient provocation or threat immediately preceding the act sued upon and voluntary surrender, but it refused to treat the situation as warranting total absolution of liability. It reduced the penalty of reclusion temporal by one degree under Article 64(5) of the Revised Penal Code, and it applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The Sandiganbayan imposed damages: P2,920.00 as actual damages; P24,000.00 as unrealized net income or lost earning capacity for ten years; and P15,000.00 as indemnity for death.

Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration with the Sandiganbayan. Instead, he filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court on January 30, 1984.

The Petition and the Issues Raised

Petitioner alleged that the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error. First, he argued that the Sandiganbayan failed to consider in his favor the elements of unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means used to repel it. Second, he contended that the Sandiganbayan dismissed his theory of self-defense for an improper reason by requiring visible injury, even though he did not suffer any scratch. Third, he argued that his conviction should not have been sustained because there was doubt as to his guilt, and thus no civil damages should have been awarded.

The Solicitor General, in turn, submitted that the facts established unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased. It emphasized that it was undisputed that the deceased attacked petitioner twice with a four-inch bladed knife. It argued that unlawful aggression was manifest because the physical assaults placed petitioner’s life in actual peril, citing People vs. Sumicad, 56 Phil. 647. It further maintained that the existence of unlawful aggression did not depend on whether the attacks would predictably succeed. It added that petitioner did not need to be wounded first, because an attempted aggression that gives rise to the right to prevent it sufficed, citing People vs. Batungbacal, 37 Phil. 382, and People vs. Hitosis, 55 Phil. 298.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Self-Defense and the Requisites

The Supreme Court agreed with petitioner and with the Solicitor General on two points. It held that the first requisite of self-defense, unlawful aggression, was present because the evidence showed that the deceased attacked petitioner with the knife. It also found that the third requisite, the absence of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself, was likewise present. The Court reasoned that petitioner was acting in the performance of his duty as a traffic policeman when he attempted to arrest the deceased for violating a traffic regulation. It also noted that the Sandiganbayan had already appreciated the victim’s sufficient provocation or threat immediately preceding the act as a mitigating circumstance, together with voluntary surrender.

The principal issue thus focused on the second requisite: reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. On this matter, the Court accepted the Solicitor General’s and the Sandiganbayan’s view that petitioner did not use reasonable means.

The Court examined the circumstances surrounding the shooting. It found that after the deceased lunged at petitioner, the deceased stumbled and even went past petitioner. At that instant, the Court held that petitioner could have just struck the deceased with his gun or, at worst, aimed the gun at a non-vital part to overcome resistance to arrest. Instead, petitioner chose to fire at the back of the deceased, killing him almost instantly.

To support the conclusion on unreasonable means, the Court invoked the doctrine in People vs. Oanis that a peace officer is not justified in using unnecessary force in effecting arrests, nor in treating the arrested person with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could be effected otherwise. It emphasized the procedural restraint stated in the Rules of Court on arrest: that no unnecessary or unreasonable force may be used, and that the person arrested should not be subjected to a greater restraint than necessary for detention. It further noted that the 1985 amendments made the prohibition stricter by providing that no violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest.

The Court also relied on People vs. De Jesus, where it had held that even when the deceased was shown to be the aggressor, the reasonableness of the means used could not be assessed in favor of the defender where the necessity of the means did not clearly appear reasonable. In that case, it had considered the deceased’s drunkenness as affecting dangerousness and found that the defender’s aim was faulty, with the defender not hitting the victim despite stab attempts. The Court used that reasoning to highlight that the necessity and reasonableness of the defender’s means are not established simply by the existence of unlawful aggression.

Applying the same approach to the present case, the Court reviewed petitioner’s own testimony. Petitioner had explained that after the deceased lunged at him the second time, the deceased was not steady due to being drunk or high on drugs, and the deceased lost balance,

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms