G.R. No. L-65762 June 23, 1984
JOSE FRIAS, JR. and GERVACIO TACAS, petitioners-appellants, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

The Sandiganbayan convicted Police Corporal Gervacio Tacas and Jose Frias, Jr. of Murder for the killing of Bartolome Arellano. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, including the victim’s daughter Edita and cousin Francisco Arellano, who testified that on August 3, 1980, Tacas and Frias, both armed, shot the unarmed victim while he was walking. The court rejected Tacas’s claim of self-defense and fulfillment of duty, finding the witnesses credible and noting the post-incident planting of a gun and knife on the corpse by other policemen.
On appeal, the Solicitor General recommended acquittal. For Tacas, new evidence from defense witness Paguirigan, which the Sandiganbayan had disregarded, established that the victim was actually a suspect in a shooting incident, was armed with a shotgun, refused arrest, pointed his gun at Tacas, and fired first. This narrative supported Tacas’s claim that he acted in the lawful performance of his duty to arrest a fleeing, armed suspect who posed a direct threat.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting appellants of Murder, specifically in rejecting the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty for Tacas and in finding conspiracy with Frias.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted both appellants. The legal logic centered on the re-evaluation of evidence for the justifying circumstance under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. For Tacas, the Court gave credence to the defense evidence showing he was a policeman on duty attempting to arrest Bartolome Arellano, a suspect who was armed, resisted, and fired at him. When a lawman, in the lawful exercise of his duty, is confronted with an imminent threat to his life from an armed suspect who refuses to surrender, his use of force is justified. The Court held that Tacas should not be required to unnecessarily expose himself to peril, and his split-second decision to fire back when shot at constituted a legitimate act in the fulfillment of his duty.
Regarding Jose Frias, Jr., the Court found insufficient proof of conspiracy. Conspiracy cannot be presumed and must be proven as convincingly as the crime itself. The prosecution failed to establish any motive for Frias to kill the victim or evidence of a prior plan. His presence and alleged actions were deemed accidental, possibly geared toward protecting his father-in-law, Tacas, which negates conspiracy. With the justifying circumstance exonerating Tacas and no conspiracy proven, Frias’s liability also dissolved.