G.R. No. L-4092
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANIEL CAMPO, defendant-appellant.
February 6, 1908

FACTS:
On April 5, 1906, municipal police officers Aquilino Navesaga, Corporal Pedro Nadela, and the accused, Daniel Campo, were patrolling Lavis, Talisay, Cebu. They encountered a group playing cards who, upon being ordered to stop, fled. Daniel Campo pursued one of the fugitives, Julian Lavandero. Campo fired his revolver twice without effect, then again, hitting Lavandero in the right arm and causing him to fall. Despite Corporal Nadela shouting for him to stop firing, Campo fired a fourth shot at close range at the fallen Lavandero, hitting him in the back. Lavandero died instantly.

Campo pleaded not guilty, alleging that Lavandero resisted arrest and attacked him with a sickle, compelling him to fire. The trial court found Campo guilty of homicide, sentencing him to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, accessory penalties, P1,000 indemnity, and costs. Campo appealed this judgment.

ISSUE:
Whether Daniel Campo’s act of shooting and killing Julian Lavandero, an unarmed and fleeing suspect who offered no resistance, constituted the crime of homicide, or if his actions were justified as a police officer in the performance of duty.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, finding Daniel Campo guilty of homicide.

The Court rejected Campo’s exculpatory allegations, finding no evidence of resistance or aggression on the part of Julian Lavandero. Eyewitness testimonies established that Lavandero was unarmed and offered no resistance, and the sickle Campo referred to belonged to another person. The Court noted that Campo continued firing despite his corporal’s orders to stop and even fired at point-blank range at Lavandero after he had already been wounded and fallen to the ground.

The Court held that such conduct evinced a clear intent to kill an unarmed and unresisting fugitive, and could not be classified as mere negligence but as willful and felonious homicide. The Court emphasized that Campo could not claim to have acted in compliance with a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right, as a police officer is not authorized to use deadly force to capture an individual who is merely fleeing and offers no resistance. Citing a Supreme Court of Spain decision, the Court reiterated that “the exercise of public authority does not warrant the use of force except in the extreme case of where one is attacked and finds no other means to comply with his duty and cause himself to be respected and obeyed.”

Finding no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the Court applied the penalty in its medium degree and affirmed the trial court’s decision, sentencing Campo to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, along with accessory penalties and civil indemnity.