FIRST DIVISION
|
RUFINO S.
MAMANGUN, Petitioner, - versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
G.R. No. 149152
Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA,
and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O
N
GARCIA, J.:
In
this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Rufino
Mamangun y Silverio seeks the reversal of the Decision[1]
dated
The
factual backdrop:
On
That on or about the 31st
day of July 1992, in the Municipality of Meycauyan, (sic) Province of Bulacan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused Rufino S. Mamangun, a public officer, being then a Police Officer
(PO2), duly appointed as such and acting in relation to his office, armed with
a gun, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength, attack, assault and shoot one Gener M. Contreras with the said gun,
hitting the latter on his body, thereby inflicting (sic) him serious physical
injuries which directly cause (sic) his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On
arraignment, petitioner, as accused below, duly assisted by a counsel de oficio, entered a plea of “Not Guilty.”
In
the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented in evidence the testimonies of
Crisanto Ayson (Ayson), an alleged eyewitness, and Dr. Benito Caballero, then the
designated Medico-Legal Officer of Bulacan who performed an autopsy on the
cadaver of the victim.
For
its part, the defense adduced in evidence the testimonies of the accused himself,
Rufino Mamangun, his co-policemen at the Philippine National Police (PNP),
namely, PO2 Carlito Cruz, PO4 Hobert O. Diaz and Police Investigator SPO-1
Hernando B. Banez, all assigned at the Meycauayan Police Station; and those of Lorenzo
S. Abacan and Rogelio Ingco, son and son-in-law, respectively, of Antonio
Abacan, owner of the house on which rooftop the shooting of the victim took
place.
It
is not disputed that on
At
about 9:00 o’clock that same evening, the desk officer of the Meycauayan PNP
Police Station, upon receiving a telephone call that a robbery-holdup was in
progress in Brgy. Calvario, immediately contacted and dispatched to the scene the
crew of Patrol Car No. 601 composed of Team Leader SPO1 Andres Legaspi, with
PO2 Eugenio Aminas and herein petitioner PO2 Rufino S. Mamangun; and Patrol Car
No. 602 composed of Team Leader PO3 Sandiego San Gabriel, with PO2 Carlito Cruz
and PO2 Hobert Diaz. With the permission of Abacan, petitioner Mamangun, PO2
Diaz and PO2 Cruz went to the rooftop of the house whereat the suspect was allegedly
taking refuge.
The
three policemen, i.e., petitioner,
Diaz and Cruz, each armed with a drawn handgun, searched the rooftop. There,
they saw a man whom they thought was the robbery suspect. At that instance, petitioner Mamangun, who
was walking ahead of the group, fired his handgun once, hitting the man. The
man turned out to be Gener Contreras (Contreras) who was not the robbery
suspect.
Contreras
died from the gunshot wound. The autopsy conducted by Dr. Benito B. Caballero yielded
the following findings:
The cause of death was
“Shock due to massive external and internal hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot
wounds in the left arm side of the thorax, penetrating the left lung and
vertebral column.” There were several
wounds caused by one (1) bullet.
As shown on the sketch
of human body attached to the Certificate of Death, and as testified on by Dr.
Caballero, the bullet entered through the “lower third of the left arm, left
side of the thorax and it penetrated the left lung and vertebral column and
that is where the slug was found.” From
a layman’s appreciation of the sketch, the bullet entered the outer, upper left
arm of the victim, exited through the inner side of the said upper left arm, a
little lower than the left armpit and the slug lodging on the victim’s back
where it was recovered at the vertebral column.[3]
From
the foregoing admitted or undisputed facts, the prosecution and the defense presented
conflicting versions as to how the fatal shooting of Contreras by petitioner
Mamangun actually happened.
According
to Ayson, the lone eyewitness for the prosecution, he accompanied the three
policemen (Mamangun, Diaz and Cruz) to the rooftop of Abacan’s house. He was following petitioner Mamangun who was
ahead of the group. They passed through the second-floor door of the house to
the rooftop. The roof was lighted by an
incandescent bulb from an adjacent house.
He was beside Mamangun when they saw, some four to five arms-length away,
a man whom he (witness) recognized as Gener Contreras. Mamangun pointed his .45 cal. pistol at the
man, who instantly exclaimed, “Hindi ako,
hindi ako!,” to which Mamangun
replied, “Anong hindi ako?” Before he (Ayson) could say anything,
Mamangun fired his gun, hitting the man who turned out to be Contreras. He (witness)
approached the victim who was then lying on his left side unconscious. He brought down the victim and they rushed him
to the hospital where he died at about
The
defense has its own account of what purportedly actually transpired.
PO2 Mamangun, along with PO2 Cruz and PO2Diaz, denied the
presence of Ayson at the rooftop during the shooting incident. Corroborating one another, the three testified
that they were the only ones at the scene of the shooting, and that it was
dark. They claimed that each of them, with
Mamangun on the lead, went on separate directions around a water tank. As they
met each other at the other side of the tank, PO2 Cruz pointed to a person crouching
at the edge of the roof of the garage. Thinking that the person was the suspect
they were looking for, Mamangun chased said person. They announced that they
were police officers but the person continued to run in a crouching position until
Mamangun caught up with him and shouted, “Pulis.
Tigil,” whereupon the person suddenly stopped, turned around, faced Mamangun,
and raised a stainless steel pipe towards the latter’s head but Mamangun was
able to evade the attack. This prompted Mamangun to shoot the person on the
left arm. All three claimed that it was
only at this point that PO2 Cruz and Diaz approached Contreras who told them, “Hindi ako. Hindi ako.” Mamangun went
near Contreras and asked, “Why did you go
to the rooftop? You know there are policemen here.” Contreras was
thereafter brought to the hospital where he died. After the shooting incident,
Mamangun reported the same to the desk officer, POI Filomeno de Luna, who
advised him to remain in the police station. De Luna directed Police
Investigator Hernando Banez to investigate the incident. That same evening,
Investigator Banez went to the place where the shooting happened. Banez allegedly found a steel pipe about
three (3) feet long on the depressed portion of the roof.
On
WHEREFORE, the accused,
RUFINO S. MAMANGUN, is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Homicide, defined and penalized under Article 249, Revised Penal Code, and taking
into account the attendance of one (1) privileged mitigation (sic) circumstance, one generic circumstance
and no aggravating circumstance, he is hereby sentenced under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of from Three (3) Years and
Three (3) Months of prision correctional
as minimum, to Seven (7) years of prision
mayor, as maximum, to indemnify the heirs (parents) of Gener Contreras in
the total amount of P352,025.00, and to past the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Unable to accept the judgment of conviction, petitioner
is now with this Court via the
present recourse alleging that the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in
failing to apply paragraph 5, Article 11, of the Revised Penal Code, which would have absolved him from criminal liability on the
basis of his submission that the shooting in question was done in the
performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
First off, petitioner insists that the shooting, which
ultimately caused the demise of Contreras, was justified because he was
repelling Contreras’ unlawful attack on his person, as Contreras was then about to strike him on the head with
a steel pipe.
We
are not persuaded.
Well-settled
is the rule that factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon the
Court except where: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly
mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on
misapprehension of facts and the findings of fact are premised on the absence
of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[5]
None of these exceptions obtains in this case.
Having
admitted[6]
the fatal shooting of Contreras on the
night of
The
justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under paragraph 5, Article II,
of the Revised Penal Code may be invoked only after the defense successfully
proves that: (1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty; and (2) the
injury inflicted or offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due
performance or lawful exercise of such duty.[7]
Concededly,
the first requisite is present in this case. Petitioner, a police officer, was responding
to a robbery-holdup incident. His presence
at the situs of the crime was in
accordance with the performance of his duty. However, proof that the shooting and
ultimate death of Contreras was a necessary consequence of the due performance
of his duty as a policeman is essential to exempt him from criminal liability.
As we see it, petitioner’s posturing that he
shot Contreras because the latter tried to strike him with a steel pipe was a
mere afterthought to exempt him from criminal liability.
We see no plausible basis to depart from the
Sandiganbayan’s findings that there was no reason for the petitioner to shoot
Contreras. The latter was unarmed and had already uttered, “Hindi po ako, Hindi po ako” before the petitioner
fatally shot him on the left arm. Prosecution witness Ayson, who was then
behind the petitioner when the latter shot Contreras, testified that to the
victim’s utterances, the petitioner even responded, “Anong hindi ako,” and immediately shot Contreras.[8] As
correctly observed by the Sandiganbayan:
Besides being
self-serving (with respect to the accused) and biased (with respect to his
co-policemen-witnesses), We find (1) the claim of the accused and his
co-policemen-witnesses that the victim (Contreras) attacked the said accused
and (2) their seemingly “positive” identification of the stainless steel pipe (more
of a rod) as his weapon, to be of doubtful credibility, for the following
reasons:
(1) We
have no doubt that, as claimed by PO2 Carlito Cruz and PO2 Hobert Diaz, the
three policemen appropriately identified themselves as police officers as they
started chasing the man they saw “crouching,” and, as claimed by accused PO2
Rufino Mamangun, that, as he was about to catch up with said man, he shouted,
“Pulis! Tigil!” With all these introductions and
forewarnings, it is utterly incredible and contrary to human experience that,
that man, later identified to be Gener Contreras and admittedly not the person
they were looking for, purportedly armed only with a stainless steel “lead”
pipe (more of a rod) would suddenly stop, turn around and attack one of the three
policemen who were chasing him, one after the other, with drawn guns.
(2) When
the victim (Gener Contreras) fell down after being shot by accused PO2
Mamangun, and as the latter went near the fallen victim, said accused asked,
”Why did you go to the rooftop. You know
there are policemen here.” He admits
that he did not ask the victim, “Why did you try to hit me, if you are not the
one?” This admission clearly belies the
claim of the police-witnesses that Gener Contreras attacked the accused policeman
with an iron pipe when he was shot, for the accused should have asked the
latter question.
(3) The
location of the entry of the bullet fired by accused Mamangun which is at the
outer left arm at about the bicep of the victim and its trajectory as it
penetrated his body hitting his vital organs along the way belies the claim of
the accused that the victim was facing him and had just missed his head with an
iron pipe, as instead the victim must have instinctively shielded his body with
his left arm.
Moreover,
petitioner’s pretense that Contreras struck him with a steel pipe is intriguing.
As it is, petitioner did not report the same to Police Investigator Banez when
he reported back to the police station after the shooting incident. It was only
when a lead pipe was recovered from the scene and brought to the police station
that petitioner conveniently remembered Contreras trying to hit him with a pipe.
Such a vital information could not have escaped the petitioner’s mind.
We are thus inclined to believe that the alleged actuation of Contreras, which
could have justified petitioner’s shooting him, was nothing but a concocted
story to evade criminal liability.
Indeed, knowing that he shot Contreras, the least that the petitioner should
have done was to bring with him to the police station the very pipe with which
Contreras tried to attack him. As borne by the evidence, however, it was only
after a police investigator referred to the scene that the lead pipe surfaced.
Petitioner
would likewise argue that the testimony of prosecution witness Ayson was
incredible and riddled with inconsistencies.
The
alleged contradictions cited by the petitioner, i.e. where the victim was shot, where he died, and as to whether
Ayson left his house after the shooting incident, are but minor details which
do not affect Ayson’s credibility. We have held time and again that few
discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness referring to
minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime,
do not impair his credibility. Quite the contrary, such minor inconsistencies even
tend to strengthen credibility because they discount the possibility that the
testimony was rehearsed.[9]
For sure, the record reveals that
Ayson’s answers to the questions propounded by the defense counsel are clear
and categorical. As to where the victim died, Ayson
clarified that the
victim was already at the rooftop even before the
arrival of the police officers. As to
why he was not able to warn Mamangun that the victim was his relative, Ayson
explained that he was not able
to utter any word because when Contreras said “Hindi ako. Hindi ako,” petitioner
suddenly fired at the latter.[10] As to the claim
that Ayson was
also on the roof, record shows that the robbery-holdup
happened at around 8:00 in the evening. Before the policemen arrived, Ayson and
Contreras were already pursuing the robber.[11] Ayson
also testified that when the victim was shot by the petitioner, the former fell
on his left side unconscious; that he did not leave his house after the
incident because he was afraid that the policemen would detain him.[12]
Self-defense,
whether complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated as a valid justifying
circumstance in this case. For, from the above admitted, uncontroverted or
established facts, the most important element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim to justify a claim of
self defense was absent. Lacking this
essential and primary element of unlawful aggression, petitioner’s plea of self-defense,
complete or incomplete, must have to fail.
To
be sure, acts in the fulfillment of a
duty, without more, do not completely justify the petitioner’s firing the
fatal gunshot at the victim. True, petitioner, as one of the
policemen responding to a reported robbery then in
progress, was performing his duty as a police officer as well as when he was
trying to effect the arrest of the suspected robber and in the process, fatally
shoot said suspect, albeit the wrong man.
However, in the absence of the equally necessary justifying
circumstance that the injury or offense
committed be the necessary consequence
of the due performance of such duty, there can only be incomplete justification,
a privileged mitigating circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the Revised
Penal Code.
There
can be no quibbling that there was no rational necessity for the killing of
Contreras. Petitioner could have first
fired a warning shot before pulling the trigger against Contreras who was one of
the residents chasing the suspected robber.
All
told, we find no reversible error
committed by the Sandiganbayan in convicting
the petitioner of the crime of
Homicide attended by the
privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete justifying circumstance of
having acted in the performance of his duty as a policeman and the generic
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
IN VIEW WHEREOF,
the instant petition is DENIED and
the assailed decision of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED in all respects.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate
Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section
13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Nicodemo T. Ferrer with Associate Justices Narciso S. Nario and
Rodolfo G. Palatao, concurring; Rollo, pp. 25-46.
[2] Sandiganbayan Record, Vol. I, p. 1.
[3] As culled from the Sandiganbayan
decision,
[4] Supra note 1.
[5] Resoso v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 124140,
[6] TSN, p. 11; Hearing on
[7] People v. Cawaling, G.R. No. 117970,
[9] People v. Givera, G.R. No. 132159,
[10] TSN, pp. 9-10,
[11] Ibid at p. 20.
[12] Ibid at p. 15.