G.R. No. 149152 . February 2, 2007. RUFINO S. MAMANGUN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS

Petitioner Rufino Mamangun, a police officer, was charged with Murder for shooting Gener Contreras on July 31, 1992, in Meycauayan, Bulacan. The prosecution alleged that Mamangun, while responding to a robbery report, willfully shot the victim on a rooftop. The lone eyewitness, Crisanto Ayson, testified that Mamangun pointed his gun at Contreras, who pleaded “Hindi ako!” before being shot. The defense presented a different version, claiming it was dark and that Contreras, mistaken for the suspect, allegedly raised a steel pipe in an aggressive manner, prompting Mamangun to fire in self-defense. The Sandiganbayan convicted Mamangun of the lesser crime of Homicide.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly convicted petitioner of Homicide instead of Murder, and whether the mitigating circumstances were properly appreciated.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Homicide. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to establish that Mamangun shot and killed Contreras. The claim of self-defense was rejected because the essential element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was absent. The Court held that while Mamangun was performing his duty as a police officer responding to a robbery, the fatal shooting was not a necessary consequence of that duty. Thus, the justifying circumstance was incomplete, constituting only a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan that there was no rational necessity for the killing, as a warning shot could have been fired first. The generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was also properly appreciated. Consequently, with these mitigating circumstances, the penalty was reduced accordingly. The petition was denied, and the Sandiganbayan decision was affirmed.