Case Summary (G.R. No. 120744-46)
Key Dates
• April 5, 1988 – Shooting incident.
• April 30, 1991 – Accused arraigned.
• June 30, 1995 – Sandiganbayan decision convicting of homicide and attempted homicide.
• June 25, 2012 – Supreme Court decision on petitions for certiorari.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision post-1990).
• Revised Penal Code: Art. 11(5) (justifying circumstances), Art. 8 (conspiracy), Art. 249 (homicide), Art. 250 in relation to Art. 6(3) and Art. 51 (attempted homicide).
• Indeterminate Sentence Law.
• Jurisprudence on lawful performance of duty, mistake of fact, conspiracy, burden of proof.
Facts of the Case
On April 5, 1988, members of the Integrated National Police, barangay captains, and CHDF volunteers, acting on a tip about armed NPA infiltration, positioned themselves at a curve in Barangay Quebiawan. A green Toyota Tamaraw jeepney driven by Noel Villanueva with passenger Leodevince Licup and four others was fired upon. Licup suffered fatal gunshot wounds; Villanueva was seriously injured. Prosecution witnesses (Flores, Villanueva, Salangsang) described a coordinated ambuscade from the yard of a nearby house. Forensic examination revealed eleven bullet holes concentrated on the right (passenger) side of the jeepney at oblique and perpendicular angles. Ballistics tests showed gunpowder residue on petitioners’ service firearms. Medico-legal findings matched trajectories consistent with shots fired from the assailants’ posts.
Procedural History
Accused indicted for:
• Case No. 16612 – Murder of Licup.
• Case No. 16613 – Multiple attempted murder of four occupants.
• Case No. 16614 – Frustrated murder of Villanueva.
They pleaded not guilty; jointly tried; granted bail; administrative charges for gross misconduct led to dismissals from service. The Sandiganbayan, finding no justifying circumstance, convicted six petitioners as co-principals of homicide (Art. 249 RPC) for Licup’s death and of attempted homicide (Art. 249 in relation to Art. 6(3) RPC) for Villanueva’s injury; acquitted all of Case 16613. Sentences imposed and damages awarded; motions for reconsideration denied.
Issues
1. Whether the shooting was in lawful performance of duty (Art. 11(5), RPC).
2. Whether petitioners shared a conspiracy to kill.
3. Applicability of mistake of fact defense.
4. Correct characterization of offenses (homicide, attempted homicide vs. murder, frustrated murder, reckless imprudence).
5. Proper penalties and damages.
Lawful Performance of Duty
Justification under Art. 11(5) RPC requires (a) due performance of duty and (b) injury as necessary consequence. Police may use only reasonably necessary force as last resort. Here, petitioners fired directly on a dimly lit, unarmed jeepney without alternative measures (pursuit, warning, disabling tires). No imminent lethal threat was shown. Their actions exceeded lawful duty; justification fails.
Mistake of Fact
Defense requires an honest, reasonable misapprehension of facts that negates criminal intent, free from negligence or bad faith. Although petitioners believed occupants were rebels, they offered no verification and ignored less-lethal alternatives. The defense of mistake of fact is unavailable.
Conspiracy and Collective Liability
Conspiracy (Art. 8, RPC) may be inferred from coordinated positioning, simultaneous firing, and common purpose to prevent the jeepney’s escape. Precise identification of individual shooters is unnecessary; all who discharged service firearms in furtherance of the plan are co-principals.
Nature of Offenses
• Homicide (Art. 249 RPC) – intentional killing without qualifying circumstances.
• Attempted homicide (Art. 249 in relation to Art. 6(3) RPC) – intent to kill and over
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 120744-46)
Procedural History
- Three criminal informations (Nos. 16612–16614) filed in the Sandiganbayan charging public officers and civilian volunteers with murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder arising from an April 5, 1988 shooting in Barangay Quebiawan, San Fernando, Pampanga.
- Accused included INP (Integrated National Police) officers Salvador Yapyuco Jr., Generoso Cunanan Jr., Ernesto Puno; barangay captains Jose Pamintuan and Mario Reyes; and CHDF/CVO members Andrés Reyes, Virgilio Manguerra, Carlos David, Ruben Lugtu, Moises Lacson, Renato Yu, Jaime Pabalan (deceased), among others.
- All accused (except the deceased Pabalan and Pamintuan, who died before trial) entered pleas of not guilty; several applied for and were granted bail.
- Joint trial conducted; prosecution presented lay and expert witnesses, defense offered testimony of Yapyuco and station commander S/Supt. Rolando Cinco; other accused waived presentation of evidence.
- Sandiganbayan, on June 30, 1995, convicted Yapyuco, Cunanan, Puno, Manguerra, Mario Reyes and Andrés Reyes of homicide under Art. 249 of the RPC (in lieu of murder in Case No. 16612) and attempted homicide (in lieu of frustrated murder in Case No. 16614), acquitting all of attempted murder in Case No. 16613.
- Accused filed for reconsideration; denied. Appeals for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed with the Supreme Court challenging findings of conspiracy, intent and justification, and seeking modification of verdicts.
Material Facts
- On April 5, 1988, between 5:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m., six employees of San Miguel Corporation—Licup, Villanueva, Flores, De Vera, Calma and Panlican—left a barrio fiesta; Licup rode front passenger, Villanueva drove a green Toyota Tamaraw jeepney.
- Villanueva drove slowly (5–10 kph), headlights dimmed; at a curve near Lenlen Naron’s house, multiple bursts of gunfire hit the jeepney’s right side.
- Licup sustained fatal injuries and died on April 7; Villanueva suffered wounds requiring 10–30 days’ incapacity.
- Witnesses Flores, Villanueva and Salangsang sketched and identified the ambush site and the armed assailants positioned in Naron’s yard.
- Forensic chemist Dabor found petitioners’ service weapons positive for gunpowder residue and eleven bullet holes in the jeepney’s doors at oblique and perpendicular trajectories.
- Medico-legal consultant Dr. Solis detailed wound trajectories indicating shots fired from front, side and rear, suggesting multiple gunmen.
- Station commander Ci