GR 148431; (July, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148431. July 28, 2005.
SPO2 RUPERTO CABANLIG, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig, a police officer, was charged with murder alongside four colleagues for the death of detainee Jimmy Valino. The prosecution alleged that on September 28, 1992, the accused, while escorting Valino to retrieve stolen items, summarily executed him. Cabanlig admitted shooting Valino but claimed it was an act of self-defense and performance of duty. He testified that while aboard a moving vehicle, Valino suddenly grabbed the M16 rifle of another officer, SPO2 Lucio Mercado, and jumped out. Cabanlig, claiming he perceived an imminent danger, immediately fired shots without warning, killing Valino.
The Sandiganbayan acquitted Cabanlig’s four co-accused but convicted him of the lesser crime of homicide. The court found that while Valino did grab the rifle and jump from the vehicle, the circumstances did not justify the use of lethal force. It noted Valino was shot multiple times, including in the back, and did not fire the weapon. The court rejected the claim of a lawful performance of duty, sentencing Cabanlig to an indeterminate penalty and ordering him to pay indemnity to Valino’s heirs.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Cabanlig of homicide, rejecting his defense of performance of duty and self-defense.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision. The legal logic centers on the burden of proof for justifying a killing. When an accused admits the killing, as Cabanlig did, the burden shifts to him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the act was lawful, arising from a reasonable necessity in the performance of duty or in self-defense. The Court found Cabanlig failed to discharge this burden. The circumstances did not show an absolute necessity for the use of deadly force. Valino, though he seized a rifle, had jumped from the vehicle and did not discharge the weapon or immediately threaten the officers with it. The immediate firing of multiple shots without any warning or attempt to subdue the fleeing detainee was not a reasonable and necessary response. The Sandiganbayan’s factual findings, including its assessment of witness credibility and the trajectory of the wounds, are accorded finality. Thus, the conviction for homicide, which presumes the killing was not attended by the qualifying circumstances of murder, was upheld. The penalty and civil liabilities imposed were sustained.