SALVADOR YAPYUCO y ENRIQUEZ vs.

HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE

Doctrine: Law enforcers thrust their lives in unimaginable zones of peril. Yet resort to wanton violence is
never justified when their duty could be performed otherwise. A "shoot first, think later" disposition
occupies no decent place in a civilized society. Never has homicide or murder been a function of law
enforcement. The public peace is never predicated on the cost of human life.

Facts: These are petitions for review on certiorari assailing the Decision of the Sandiganbayan in three
Criminal Cases. The cases are predicated on a shooting incident in San Fernando, Pampanga which
caused the death of Leodevince Licup and injured Noel Villanueva. Accused were all charged with
murder, multiple attempted murder and frustrated murder. Accused were all members of the
Integrated National Police stationed at the Sindalan Substation in San Fernando, Pampanga, barangay
captains of Quebiawan and Del Carmen, members of the Civil Home Defense Force or civilian volunteer
officers in Barangays Quebiawan, Del Carmen and Telebastagan.

That on or about the 5th day of April 1988, in Barangay Quebiawan, San Fernando, Pampanga,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, all public
officers, being then policemen, Brgy. Captains, Brgy. Tanod and members of the Civil Home Defense
Force (CHDF), respectively, confederating and mutually helping one another, and while responding to
information about the presence of armed men in said barangay and conducting surveillance thereof,
thus committing the offense in relation to their office, did then and there, with treachery and evident
premeditation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and with deliberate intent to take the life of
Leodevince S. Licup, attack the latter with automatic weapons by firing directly at the green Toyota
Tamaraw jitney ridden by Leodevince S. Licup and inflicting multiple gunshot wounds which are
necessarily mortal on the different parts of the body, thereby causing the direct and immediate death
of the latter.

On the evening of the incident, Villanueva, Flores, Calma, De Vera, Panlican and Licup were at the
residence of Salangsang as guests at the barrio fiesta celebrations. The company decided to leave at
around 7:30 p.m., shortly after the religious procession. With Licup in the passenger seat and the rest of
his companions at the back of his Tamaraw jeepney, Villanueva allegedly proceeded at 5-10 kph with
headlights dimmed. Suddenly, as they were approaching a curve on the road, they met a burst of gunfire
and instantly, Villanueva and Licup were both wounded and bleeding profusely. Both Flores and
Villanueva allegedly did not see any one on the road flag them down. After the shooting, Flores jumped
out of the jeepney when he saw petitioner Pamintuan emerging. Pamintuan reproved them for not
stopping when flagged. Villanueva cried out and told Flores to summon Salangsang for help as he and
Licup were wounded. Flores dashed back to Salangsang’s house as instructed and, returning to the
scene, he observed that petitioner Yu was also there, and Villanueva and Licup were being loaded into a
Sarao jeepney by two armed men together with Pamintuan, to be taken to the hospital. As soon as
Flores and his companions had been dropped off at the hospital, the driver of the Sarao jeepney
immediately drove off together with his two armed companions. Licup later expired at the hospital.
Flores claimed that all the accused had not been known to him prior to the incident, except for
Pamintuan whom he identified to be his wife’s uncle and with whom he denied having had any rift. The
bullet holes on the Tamaraw jeepney were all on the passenger side and that there were no other bullet
holes at the back or in any other portion of the vehicle.
Salangsang testified that he caught a glance of Mario Reyes on the wheel of an owner-type jeepney
idling in front of the ill-fated Tamaraw; it was the same jeepney which he remembered to be that
frequently used by Yapyuco in patrolling the barangay. Only Yapyuco took the stand for the defense. He
identified himself as the commander of the Sindalan Police Substation in San Fernando, Pampanga. He
narrated that he and his men received a summon for police assistance concerning a reported presence
of armed NPA members in Quebiawan. Yapyuco decided to respond and instructed his men to put on
their uniforms and bring their M-16 rifles with them. Yapyuco and his group met with Pamintuan who
told him that he had earlier spotted four men carrying long firearms. As if sizing up their collective
strength, Pamintuan intimated that he and barangay captain Mario Reyes had also brought in a number
of armed men and CAFGU members. Moments later, Pamintuan announced the approach of his
suspects, hence Yapyuco, Cunanan and Puno took post in the middle of the road at the curve where the
Tamaraw jeepney conveying the victims would make an inevitable turn. As the jeepney came much
closer, Pamintuan announced that it was the target vehicle, so they allegedly flagged it down and
signaled for it to stop. He claimed that instead of stopping, the jeepney accelerated and swerved to its
left. This inspired them to fire warning shots but the jeepney continued pacing forward, hence
they were impelled to fire at the tires thereof and instantaneously, gunshots allegedly came bursting
from the direction of a nearby house directly at the subject jeepney. Yapyuco recalled that one of the
occupants of the jeepney then alighted and exclaimed at Pamintuan that they were San Miguel
Corporation employees. Holding their fire, Yapyuco and his men then immediately searched the
vehicle but found no firearms but instead, two injured passengers whom they loaded into his jeepney
and delivered to nearby St. Francis Hospital. From there he and his men returned to the scene
supposedly to investigate and look for the people who fired directly at the jeepney. They found no one;
the Tamaraw jeepney was likewise gone.

The Sandiganbayan found petitioners guilty only of HOMICIDE for the eventual death of Licup, and of
attempted homicide for the injury sustained by Villanueva. The Sandiganbayan found that the qualifying
circumstance of treachery has not been proved because first, it was not shown how the aggression
commenced and how the acts causing injury to Villanueva and Licup began and developed, and second,
this circumstance must be supported by proof of a deliberate and conscious adoption of the mode of
attack and cannot be drawn from mere suppositions or from circumstances immediately preceding the
aggression. The same finding holds true for evident premeditation because between the time Yapyuco
received the summons for assistance and the time he and his men responded at the scene, there was no
sufficient time to allow for the materialization of all the elements of that circumstance.

Issue:
a.)Whether the Petitioners had deliberately ambushed the victims with the intent of killing them
b.) Whether or not Yapyuco and his men and the offense committed is the necessary consequence of
the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right.

Held:
a.)The Sandiganbayan correctly found that petitioners are guilty as co- principals in the crimes of
homicide and attempted homicide only, respectively for the death of Licup and for the non-fatal injuries
sustained by Villanueva, and that they deserve an acquittal together with the other accused, of the
charge of attempted murder with respect to the unharmed victims. The firearms used by petitioners
were either M16 rifle, .30 caliber garand rifle and .30 caliber carbine.1 While the use of these weapons
does not always amount to unnecessary force, they are nevertheless inherently lethal in nature. At the
level the bullets were fired and hit the jeepney, it is not difficult to imagine the possibility of the
passengers thereof being hit and even killed. It must be stressed that the subject jeepney was fired upon
while it was pacing the road and at that moment, it is not as much too difficult to aim and target the
tires thereof as it is to imagine the peril to which its passengers would be exposed even assuming that
the gunfire was aimed at the tires especially considering that petitioners do not appear to be mere
rookie law enforcers or unskilled neophytes in encounters with lawless elements in the streets.
Thus, judging by the location of the bullet holes on the subject jeepney and the firearms employed, the
likelihood of the passenger next to the driver and in fact even the driver himself of being hit and injured
or even killed is great to say the least, certain to be precise. This, we find to be consistent with the
uniform claim of petitioners that the impulse to fire directly at the jeepney came when it occurred to
them that it was proceeding to evade their authority. And in instances like this, their natural and logical
impulse was to debilitate the vehicle by firing upon the tires thereof, or to debilitate the driver and
hence put the vehicle to a halt. The evidence we found on the jeepney suggests that petitioners
actuations leaned towards the latter. This demonstrates the clear intent of petitioners to bring forth
death on Licup who was seated on the passenger side and to Villanueva who was occupying the wheel,
together with all the consequences arising from their deed. The circumstances of the shooting breed no
other inference than that the firing was deliberate and not attributable to sheer accident or mere lack
of skill.

At this juncture, we find that the invocation of the concept of mistake of fact faces certain failure.
In the context of criminal law, a "mistake of fact" is a misapprehension of a fact
which, if true, would have justified the act or omission which is the subject of the prosecution.
Generally, a reasonable mistake of fact is a defense to a charge of crime where it negates the intent
component of the crime. It may be a defense even if the offense charged requires proof of only general
intent. The inquiry is into the mistaken belief of the defendant, and it does not look at all to the belief or
state of mind of any other person. A proper invocation of this defense requires:

a) that the mistake be honest and reasonable;

The leading authority in mistake of fact as ground for non-liability is found in United States v. Ah Chong,
but in that setting, the principle was treated as a function of self-defense where the physical
circumstances of the case had mentally manifested to the accused an aggression which it was his
instinct to repel. There, the accused, fearful of bad elements, was woken by the sound of his bedroom
door being broken open and, receiving no response from the intruder after having demanded
identification, believed that a robber had broken in. He threatened to kill the intruder but at that
moment he was struck by a chair which he had placed against the door and, perceiving that he was
under attack, seized a knife and fatally stabbed the intruder who turned out to be his roommate.
Charged with homicide, he was acquitted because of his honest mistake of fact. Finding that the accused
had no evil intent to commit the charge, the Court explained.