GR L 1940 42; (March, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1940-42. March 24, 1949.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IGNACIO LAGATA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Ignacio Lagata, a provincial guard, was in charge of six prisoners assigned to work outside the provincial jail. While the prisoners were gathering gabi at a nursery, one prisoner, Epifanio Labong, escaped. Lagata ordered the remaining five prisoners to search for Labong. During the search, prisoner Eusebio Abria found footprints and called Lagata’s attention. Lagata then shot Abria, wounding his left arm. After Abria was shot and approached Lagata, Lagata cocked his gun and shot another prisoner, Ceferino Tipace, who died from the wound. The other prisoners fled. Lagata brought the wounded Abria to the hospital. He was charged and convicted for the crimes of murder and serious physical injuries.
ISSUE
Whether the appellant, a provincial guard, incurred criminal liability for shooting the prisoners under the circumstances, or whether his acts were justified in the performance of his official duty to prevent escape.
RULING
The Supreme Court, with a majority vote, modified the lower court’s decision but affirmed appellant’s criminal liability. The Court found that the shooting of Tipace constituted murder, qualified by treachery, as Tipace was shot while standing still, carrying gabi, and turning away, with no risk to the guard. The shooting of Abria constituted serious physical injuries. The Court rejected the defense that the shootings were a lawful performance of duty to prevent escape, noting that at the time of the shootings, the victims were not fleeing but were complying with Lagata’s orders to search for the missing prisoner. The use of deadly force was not necessary under the circumstances. The penalty for murder was reduced to reclusion temporal due to the presence of two mitigating circumstances (voluntary surrender and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong) without any aggravating circumstance. The penalty for serious physical injuries was also set within the proper range. The dissenting opinion argued that the guard acted lawfully to prevent escape and should be acquitted.
AI Generated by Armztrong.