GR L 34940; (June, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-34940 June 27, 1988
BERNARDO LACANILAO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Bernardo Lacanilao, a policeman, was convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Manila for the death of Ceferino Erese. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The appellate court found that Lacanilao acted in the performance of a duty when he responded to a disorderly situation involving the victim and his companions. However, it ruled that the shooting was not a necessary consequence of that duty, crediting him with the mitigating circumstance of incomplete fulfillment of duty under Article 11(5) of the Revised Penal Code. Applying Article 64(2) on generic mitigating circumstances, the Court of Appeals merely reduced the penalty to its minimum period.
ISSUE
The sole legal issue is whether the incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty, under Article 11(5) of the Revised Penal Code, should be treated as a special mitigating circumstance under Article 69, thereby mandating a reduction of the penalty by one or two degrees, rather than as a mere generic mitigating circumstance under Article 64.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and modified the penalty. The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in treating incomplete justification as a generic mitigating circumstance. The governing provision is Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, which applies when a deed is not wholly excusable because some, but the majority, of the conditions for a justifying or exempting circumstance are absent. This constitutes a special or privileged mitigating circumstance.
The legal logic is clear. For the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under Article 11(5) to apply fully, two conditions must concur: (1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty, and (2) the injury committed was the necessary consequence of that duty. In this case, only the first condition was present. Since the second condition was lacking, the act was not wholly excusable. Following the precedent in People v. Oanis, Article 69 is directly applicable. This article expressly provides for a penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law when such incomplete justification exists. It is a special rule that takes precedence over the general rules on mitigation in Article 64. Penal laws being construed liberally in favor of the accused, the benefit of Article 69 must be applied. Consequently, the Supreme Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.