People v.
Pinto
G.R. No. 39519
Facts:
A police operation to serve a search warrant in the premises of
Francisco Bello thru policemen Daniel Pinto, Jr. and Narciso Buenaflor,
Jr for alleged position of rifle and submachine gun. On the night of the
execution to serve the warrant a shooting incident happened. One
vehicle which carry members of Tiongson family, driver and a priest was
fired by the operatives. Richard Tiongson died the following day while
Maria Theresa was fatally wounded. Despite the incident, the police
operative pursued its mission to haunt for Francisco Bello. When they
reached the residence of Bellos parents they found out different types
of firearms. Thereafter, the Chief of Police, declared the search
terminated and the entire searching party left for the headquarters. Bello
and his party arrived in Daraga, Albay and stayed in the house of
Inocencia Malbas. Early in the morning successive burst of gunfire were
heard, Bello, who was in the balcony was gradually fall down, with his
hands above his head. He died due to multiple gunshot wounds.
Rosalio Andes was also shot and was killed allegedly fought back with
authorities. He died due to multiple gunshot wounds.
Issue:
Whether or not the killings (Tiongson, Bello and Andes) and
frustrated murder (MT Tiongson) were perpetrated in the course of the
performance of their official duties as peace officers in obedience to the
lawful order of their superiors?
Ruling:
NO, the accused-appellant killed the victims and injured one
person not in the performance of their official duty as peace officers in
obedience to the lawful order of their superior. In order that the
justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty under Article 11 of the
Revised Penal Code may be successfully invoked, the defense has to
prove that these two requisites are present: (a) the offender acted in the
performance of a duty and (b) the injury or offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due performance or lawful exercise of
such duty. In the absence of the second requisite, the justification
becomes an incomplete one thereby converting it into a mitigating
circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the same Code. Armed with
only a search warrant and the oral order to apprehend Bello, they went
beyond the ambit of their mission and deprived Bello and two other
persons of their lives.
The fact that the victims were different from the ones the
appellants intended to injure cannot save them from conviction.
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same
gravity as when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim. The main
reason behind this conclusion is the fact that the accused had acted
with such a disregard for the life of the victim(s). Without checking
carefully the latter's identity as to place himself on the same legal plane
as one who kills another willfully, unlawfully and feloniously. Neither
may the fact that the accused made a mistake in killing one man instead
of another be considered a mitigating circumstance. Treachery attended
the commission of all four crimes in this case. This is shown not only by
the testimonial evidence on the commission of the crimes but also by
the nature and location of the wounds of all the victims. We find that the
appellants indeed took advantage of their public position in perpetrating
the crime. Calderon vs. People. The judgment and discretion of public
officers, in the performance of their duties, must be exercised neither
capriciously nor oppressively, but within reasonable limits. In the
absence of a clear and legal provision to the contrary, they must act in
conformity with the dictates of a sound discretion, and with the spirit and
purpose of the law." Police officers must always bear in mind that
although they are dealing with criminal elements against whom society
must be protected, these criminals are also human beings with human
rights
