G.R. No. L-31129 September 30, 1971
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE SABANDAL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of June 9, 1968, in Gingoog City, appellant Jose Sabandal, a police officer, and Rosalio Saluper arrived by truck at a gathering where Claudio Oliveros and others were present. The two inquired about the availability of prostitutes. Upon being told there were none, Saluper became angry, struck Oliveros, and a fistfight ensued. Without any lawful cause or immediate threat, appellant Sabandal, while still descending from a house, drew his firearm and shot Oliveros in the stomach. As the wounded Oliveros attempted to flee, Sabandal fired another shot, which missed. Sabandal and Saluper then fled the scene. Oliveros died hours later, after giving an ante-mortem statement identifying Sabandal as his assailant.
Appellant claimed he was acting in the performance of his official duty, asserting he and Saluper were investigating a prior mauling incident upon the mayor’s orders. He contended that he fired his gun only when he saw his companion being attacked and when he himself was allegedly threatened with a stone by another individual, Jorge Daculap. The trial court, however, gave full credence to the prosecution’s version of events, which depicted an unprovoked and sudden shooting following a personal altercation initiated by Saluper.

ISSUE

Whether or not the appellant, Jose Sabandal, is entitled to acquittal on the ground that he acted in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of his office as a justifying circumstance under the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder. The legal logic is clear: the justifying circumstance of performance of duty requires that the accused acted in the lawful exercise of his rights or functions, and that the means employed were reasonably necessary. The Court found that the evidence of record utterly failed to substantiate appellant’s claim of acting pursuant to official duty. The prosecution evidence, which the trial court found credible, established that the encounter began with a personal and illicit query about prostitutes, escalated into a fistfight started by appellant’s companion, and culminated in appellant firing the fatal shot without any lawful justification or imminent danger that would necessitate the use of lethal force.
The Court distinguished this case from precedents where police action was deemed justified, such as preventing the escape of a detainee. Here, there was no lawful arrest being made, no escape to prevent, and no showing that the victim posed a grave threat that warranted the use of a firearm. The act of shooting was not a necessary or lawful response to the situation as found by the trial court. Therefore, appellant could not invoke the justifying circumstance. His claim was a mere afterthought to escape liability for a killing that arose from a senseless and violent altercation which he and his companion instigated. The decision of the lower court sentencing him to reclusion perpetua was upheld.