G.R. No. 132547; September 20, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SPO1 ERNESTO ULEP, accused-appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of December 22, 1995, Buenaventura Wapili, suffering from a high fever and exhibiting irrational behavior, became violent at his home in Kidapawan, Cotabato. After smashing furniture and chasing his brother-in-law, a naked and apparently deranged Wapili ran amok in the subdivision. Neighbors sought police assistance. SPO1 Ernesto Ulep, along with two other officers, responded. Upon arrival, they encountered the advancing Wapili. The prosecution and defense disputed whether Wapili was armed with a bolo or merely a rattan stool. Ulep fired a warning shot and ordered Wapili to stop. Wapili defiantly advanced, prompting Ulep to shoot him multiple times with an M-16 rifle. As Wapili fell to the ground, Ulep approached and fired a final, fatal shot into his head at close range.
The trial court convicted Ulep of Murder, qualified by treachery, and imposed the death penalty. The court rejected Ulep’s claim of self-defense and performance of duty, noting the excessive force used, particularly the coup de grâce delivered to the head of a fallen victim. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review, with Ulep maintaining he acted in lawful self-defense and in the course of his official duties as a police officer.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellant SPO1 Ernesto Ulep of the crime of Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court agreed with the trial court that Ulep failed to prove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. The nature, number, and location of the wounds, especially the final shot to the head delivered at very close range while the victim was already on the ground, were inconsistent with a mere defensive act and indicated a determined effort to kill. However, the Court found that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not established. The attack was not proven to be deliberate and adopted to ensure execution without risk to Ulep. The initial shooting occurred during a face-to-face, tumultuous confrontation where Wapili was advancing. While the final shot was treacherous, it was absorbed into the act of killing and did not qualify the crime as murder. The Court emphasized that a police officer’s right to use force is not absolute and must be a last resort. Ulep’s use of lethal force, particularly the unnecessary final shot, was unreasonable and excessive. Considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months, and ten days of prision correccional medium, as minimum, to six years, four months, and twenty days of prision mayor minimum, as maximum, plus civil indemnity.