G.R. No. L-28129 October 31, 1969
ELIAS VALCORZA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Elias Valcorza, a police officer, was charged with homicide for the death of Roberto Pimentel, a detention prisoner who had escaped from the municipal jail of Maramag, Bukidnon, where he was held for stealing a chicken. On June 6, 1960, Valcorza was part of a police patrol team searching for Pimentel. Early that morning, Pimentel was spotted and, when ordered to halt by Sergeant Daiton, jumped into a creek to escape. Valcorza and another officer pursued him. Pimentel suddenly emerged from bushes, lunged at Valcorza, and struck him twice with a stone, causing Valcorza to fall. Pimentel then fled. Valcorza chased him, firing five warning shots into the air and ordering him to stop. When Pimentel did not heed and was about to jump into another part of the creek, Valcorza, fearing Pimentel would elude capture, fired a sixth shot directly at him, hitting him in the back. Pimentel was retrieved from the creek and died shortly after being taken to the municipal building. Valcorza surrendered himself and his firearm. The trial court convicted him of homicide with mitigating circumstances, and the Court of Appeals modified the penalty but upheld the conviction. Valcorza appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming justification under Article 11, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code as a peace officer performing his duty.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not acquitting petitioner Elias Valcorza on the ground that his act of shooting the deceased was justified as having been performed in the lawful exercise of his duty as a peace officer under Article 11, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted Elias Valcorza. The Court held that Valcorza’s act of shooting Pimentel was committed in the performance of his official duty and was more or less necessary to prevent the escaping prisoner from successfully eluding arrest. The Court considered the circumstances: Pimentel had escaped from detention, assaulted Valcorza with a stone, ignored orders to stop and warning shots, and was attempting to jump into a creek to escape again. Valcorza, not being trigger-happy as evidenced by the five warning shots, fired directly only when he reasonably feared Pimentel would evade capture. The Court found that holding Valcorza guilty of homicide would demoralize police officers in the discharge of similar duties, to the detriment of public interest, and applied the spirit of its ruling in People vs. Delima. Consequently, Valcorza was acquitted, with costs de officio.