G.R. Nos. 120744-46, 122677, 122776; June 25, 2012
SALVADOR YAPYUCO y ENRIQUEZ, et al., Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, consisting of police officers, barangay officials, and members of the Civil Home Defense Force, were charged with Murder, Frustrated Murder, and Multiple Attempted Murder. The charges stemmed from a shooting incident on April 5, 1988, in San Fernando, Pampanga. The group, responding to information about armed men in the area, fired upon a green Toyota Tamaraw, resulting in the death of Leodevince Licup and the injury of Noel Villanueva. The Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioners, finding that they acted in conspiracy and that the attack was attended by treachery.
The defense claimed they acted in the performance of duty, asserting a mistake of fact. They testified that they were conducting surveillance based on a report of armed men planning to attack a barangay captain. Upon seeing the vehicle, which allegedly matched the description of the suspects’ vehicle and from which a passenger purportedly pointed a firearm, they opened fire. They argued they acted in good faith and in the lawful exercise of their authority.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioners of the crimes charged, despite their defense of having acted in good faith under a mistake of fact in the performance of official duty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. The legal logic centers on the unreasonableness of the petitioners’ claimed mistake of fact, which cannot justify the use of lethal force. For a mistake of fact to negate criminal liability, the mistake must be reasonable. The Court found the petitioners’ actions were not justified. The evidence showed they fired indiscriminately at the vehicle without any clear provocation or verification of threat. The claim that a passenger pointed a firearm was uncorroborated and belied by the physical evidence and testimonies of surviving victims.
The Court emphasized that while law enforcers face peril, “shoot first, think later” is never justified. The duty to protect does not license wanton violence. The circumstances did not show an imminent danger that warranted immediate lethal response. Their collective, sudden, and direct firing constituted a concerted attack, establishing conspiracy. The manner of attack—sudden and without warning, giving the victims no chance to defend themselves—clearly constituted treachery, qualifying the killing as Murder. The defense of performance of duty or mistake of fact therefore fails, as their belief was not founded on reasonable grounds given the absence of any aggressive act from the victims.