G.R. No. L-960, December 19, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. BIBIANO CAPISONDA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant, Bibiano Capisonda, a police sergeant of Gumaca, was charged with homicide for killing 15-year-old Lucila Marasigan with a gunshot on the night of February 12. The incident occurred around 8:00 p.m. in front of the municipal presidencia, where Capisonda was on duty. The deceased was across the street, near her house, when she was shot.

Capisonda claimed he acted in the lawful performance of his duty. He testified that orders were given to halt persons on the street after 8:00 p.m., and if they did not stop after three challenges, they could be fired upon. He stated that he saw a person about 30 varas away, challenged them three times, received the reply “insurrecto,” and, being unable to identify the person, fired.

Witnesses, including fellow policemen, contradicted his account. They testified that the curfew hour was 8:30 or 9:00 p.m., not 8:00 p.m. when the shooting occurred. They also stated there was sufficient light from a lamp in the deceased’s house to recognize a person at the location, that Capisonda knew the deceased, and that she was well-known in the town. One witness testified that Capisonda fired without any prior challenge as the deceased was about to enter her house, and another suggested Capisonda might have been drunk.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant acted in the bona fide discharge of his duty as a police officer, thereby exempting him from criminal liability, or whether the killing was wrongful and intentional.

RULING:
The Supreme Court found the defendant guilty of homicide under Article 404 of the Penal Code. The defense of performance of duty was not established. The Court found material contradictions in the defendant’s testimony, particularly regarding the curfew hour and the conditions of visibility. The evidence showed the killing occurred at the exact hour when the curfew was supposed to begin (or even before, according to other witnesses), and there was sufficient light to identify the victim, whom the defendant knew. The defendant’s claim that the victim replied “insurrecto” was deemed highly improbable. Since the defendant admitted the killing but failed to prove his justifying circumstance, he was held criminally liable.

The penalty was modified. The Court imposed seventeen years of reclusion temporal, with accessories, costs, and an indemnity of 1,000 pesos to the heirs of the deceased. The Court also noted that subsidiary imprisonment for insolvency could not be imposed for a penalty higher than presidio correccional and corrected the trial court’s error on this point. The judgment of conviction was affirmed with these modifications.