G.R. Nos. 120744-46. June 25, 2012.

SALVADOR YAPYUCO y ENRIQUEZ, petitioner, vs.

HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

G.R. No. 122677. June 25, 2012.*

MARIO D. REYES, ANDRES S. REYES and VIRGILIO A.
MANGUERRA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE
SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.

G.R. No. 122776. June 25, 2012.*

GERVACIO B. CUNANAN, JR. and ERNESTO PUNO, petitioners,
vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Evidence; Extrajudicial Confession; The extrajudicial confession or

admission of one accused is admissible only against said accused, but is
inadmissible against the other accused.—Indeed, the extrajudicial
confession or admission of one accused is admissible only against said
accused, but is inadmissible against the other accused. But if the declarant
or admitter repeats in court his extrajudicial admission, as Yapyuco did in
this case, during the trial and the other accused is accorded the opportunity
to cross-examine the admitter, the admission is admissible against both
accused because then, it is transposed into a judicial admission. It is thus
perplexing why, despite the extrajudicial statements of Cunanan, Puno and
Yapyuco, as well as the latter’s testimony implicating them in the incident,
they still had chosen to waive their right to present evidence when, in fact,
they could have shown detailed proof of their participation or non-
participation in the offenses charged. We, therefore, reject their claim that
they had been denied due process in this regard, as they opted not to testify
and be cross-examined by the

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

421

VOL. 674, JUNE 25, 2012 421

 Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

prosecution as to the truthfulness in their affidavits and, accordingly,

disprove the inculpatory admissions of their co-accused.
Criminal Law; Justifying Circumstances; Fulfillment of Duty; Lawful
Exercise of a Right; The availability of the justifying circumstance of
fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office under Article 11 (5)
of the Revised Penal Code rests on proof that (a) the accused acted in the
performance of his duty or in the lawful exercise of his right or office, and
(b) the injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence
of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or
office.—The availability of the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty
or lawful exercise of a right or office under Article 11 (5) of the Revised
Penal Code rests on proof that (a) the accused acted in the performance of
his duty or in the lawful exercise of his right or office, and (b) the injury
caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due
performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. The
justification is based on the complete absence of intent and negligence on
the part of the accused, inasmuch as guilt of a felony connotes that it was
committed with criminal intent or with fault or negligence. Where invoked,
this ground for non-liability amounts to an acknowledgment that the
accused has caused the injury or has committed the offense charged for
which, however, he may not be penalized because the resulting injury or
offense is a necessary consequence of the due performance of his duty or the
lawful exercise of his right or office.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A law enforcer in the performance of duty is
justified in using such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain
the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he
escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm; He is, however, never
justified in using unnecessary force or in treating the offender with wanton
violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could be
effected otherwise.—A law enforcer in the performance of duty is justified
in using such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the
offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he
escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm. United States v. Campo has
laid down the rule that in the performance of his duty, an agent of the
authorities is not authorized to use force, except in an extreme case when he
is attacked or is the subject of resistance, and finds no other

422

422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

means to comply with his duty or cause himself to be respected and obeyed
by the offender. In case injury or death results from the exercise of such
force, the same could be justified in inflicting the injury or causing the death
of the offender if the officer had used necessary force. He is, however, never
justified in using unnecessary force or in treating the offender with wanton
violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could be
effected otherwise.
Same; Mistake of Fact; 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.—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; (b) that it be a matter of fact; and (c) that it negate the
culpability required to commit the crime or the existence of the mental state
which the statute prescribes with respect to an element of the offense.
Evidence; The prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence
and not on the evidence of the accused. The weakness of the defense of the
accused does not relieve the prosecution of its responsibility of proving guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.—The precept in all criminal cases is that the
prosecution is bound by the invariable requisite of establishing the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must rely on the
strength of its own evidence and not on the evidence of the accused. The
weakness of the defense of the accused does not relieve the prosecution of
its responsibility of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. By reasonable
doubt is meant that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof
and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the
certainty of guilt. The overriding consideration is not whether the court
doubts the innocence of the accused, but whether it entertains reasonable
doubt as to his guilt.

423

VOL. 674, JUNE 25, 2012 423

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

Criminal Law; Conspiracy; Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code

provides that there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit
a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct
evidence; Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or more
persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though
apparently independent of each other were, in fact, connected and
cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment.—Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides
that there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony
and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence.
It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after
the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a common
purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that two or
more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though
apparently independent of each other were, in fact, connected and
cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment. Conspiracy once found, continues until the object
of it has been accomplished and unless abandoned or broken up. To hold an
accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown
to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
complicity. There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a
view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.

PETITIONS for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Sandiganbayan.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Estelito P. Mendoza for petitioners in G.R. No. 122677.
  Ponciano Carreon and Cuevas, De la Cuesta & De las Alas for
petitioner in G.R. Nos. 120744-46.
  Restituto M. David for petitioners in G.R. No. 122776.

424

424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

PERALTA,** J.:
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.
These are petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court assailing the June 30, 1995 Decision1 of the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. 16612, 16613 and 16614—
cases for murder, frustrated murder and multiple counts of attempted
murder, respectively. The cases are predicated on a shooting incident
on April 5, 1988 in Barangay Quebiawan, San Fernando, Pampanga
which caused the death of Leodevince Licup (Licup) and injured
Noel Villanueva (Villanueva). Accused were petitioners Salvador
Yapyuco, Jr. (Yapyuco) and Generoso Cunanan, Jr. (Cunanan) and
Ernesto Puno (Puno) who were members of the Integrated National
Police (INP)2 stationed at the Sindalan Substation in San Fernando,
Pampanga; Jose Pamintuan (Pamintuan) and Mario Reyes, who
were barangay captains of Quebiawan and Del Carmen,
respectively; Ernesto Puno, Andres Reyes and Virgilio Manguerra
(Manguerra), Carlos David, Ruben Lugtu, Moises Lacson (Lacson),
Renato Yu, Jaime Pabalan (Pabalan) and Carlos David (David), who
were either members of the Civil Home Defense Force (CHDF) or
civilian volunteer officers in Barangays Quebiawan, Del Carmen
and Telebastagan. They were all charged

_______________
**  Acting Chairperson, Per Special Order No. 1228 dated June 6, 2012.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo M. Escareal (Chairman), with Associate
Justices Minita V. Chico-Nazario and Roberto M. Lagman, concurring; Rollo (G.R.
Nos. 120744-46), pp. 7-80.
2 Now known as the Philippine National Police.

425

VOL. 674, JUNE 25, 2012 425

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

with murder, multiple attempted murder and frustrated murder in

three Informations, the inculpatory portions of which read:

Criminal Case No. 16612:

“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.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”3
Criminal Case No. 16613:
“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 intent to kill, attack Eduardo S. Flores, Alejandro R. de Vera,

_______________
3 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-2.

426

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

Restituto G. Calma and Raul V. Panlican with automatic weapons by firing

directly at the green Toyota Tamaraw jitney ridden by said Eduardo S.
Flores, Alejandro R. de Vera, Restituto G. Calma and Raul V. Panlican,
having commenced the commission of murder directly by overt acts of
execution which should produce the murder by reason of some cause or
accident other than their own spontaneous desistance.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”4
Criminal Case No. 16614:
“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 intent of taking the life of Noel C. Villanueva, attack the latter with
automatic weapons by firing directly at the green Toyota Tamaraw jitney
driven by said Noel C. Villanueva and inflicting multiple gunshot wounds
which are necessarily mortal and having performed all the acts which would
have produced the crime of murder, but which did not, by reason of causes
independent of the defendants’ will, namely, the able and timely medical
assistance given to said Noel C. Villanueva, which prevented his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”5

Hailed to court on April 30, 1991 after having voluntarily

surrendered to the authorities,6 the accused—except Pabalan

_______________
4 Records, Vol. 5, pp. 1-2.
5 Records, Vol. 6, pp. 1-2.
6 Records, Vol. 1, p. 46.

427
 VOL. 674, JUNE 25, 2012 427
Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

who died earlier on June 12, 1990,7 and Yapyuco who was then
allegedly indisposed8—entered individual pleas of not guilty.9 A
month later, Yapyuco voluntarily surrendered to the authorities, and
at his arraignment likewise entered a negative plea.10 In the
meantime, Mario Reyes, Andres Reyes, David, Lugtu, Lacson, Yu
and Manguerra jointly filed a Motion for Bail relative to Criminal
Case No. 16612.11 Said motion was heard on the premise, as
previously agreed upon by both the prosecution and the defense, that
these cases would be jointly tried and that the evidence adduced at
said hearing would automatically constitute evidence at the trial on
the merits.12 On May 10, 1991, the Sandiganbayan granted bail in
Criminal Case No. 16612.13 Yapyuco likewise applied for bail on
May 15, 1991 and the same was also granted on May 21, 1991.14
Pamintuan died on November 21, 1992,15 and accordingly, the
charges against him were dismissed.
At the July 4, 1991 pre-trial conference, the remaining accused
waived the pre-trial inquest.16 Hence, joint trial on the merits ensued
and picked up from where the presentation of evidence left off at the
hearing on the bail applications.
The prosecution established that in the evening of April 5, 1988,
Villanueva, Flores, Calma, De Vera, Panlican and Licup were at the
residence of Salangsang as guests at the barrio

_______________
7 Accordingly, the charges against him were dismissed. See April 30, 1991 Order,
id., at p. 108. TSN, April 30, 1991, pp. 3-5.
8 April 30, 1991 Order, records, Vol. 1, pp. 107-108; TSN, April 30, 1991, pp. 12-
14. See also records, Vol. 1, pp. 191-197.
9 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 96-105.
10 Id., at p. 307.
11 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 52-55.
12 Resolution dated May 10, 1991, records, Vol. 1, pp. 198-205.
13 Id., at p. 205.
14 Id., at pp. 300-308.
15 See certificate of Death, records, Vol. II, p. 707; see also Manifestation dated
December 11, 1992, id., at pp. 703-704.
16 Records, Vol. 1, p. 388.

428

428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan
fiesta celebrations between 5:00 and 7:30 p.m. The company
decided to leave at around 7:30 p.m., shortly after the religious
procession had passed. As they were all inebriated, Salangsang
reminded Villanueva, who was on the wheel, to drive carefully and
watch out for potholes and open canals on the road. 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.17
Both Flores and Villanueva, contrary to what the defense would
claim, allegedly did not see any one on the road flag them down.18 In
open court, Flores executed a sketch19 depicting the relative location
of the Tamaraw jeepney on the road, the residence of Salangsang
where they had come from and the house situated on the right side
of the road right after the curve where the jeepney had taken a left
turn; he identified said house to be that of a certain Lenlen Naron
where the gunmen allegedly took post and opened fire at him and his
companions. He could not tell how many firearms were used. He
recounted that after the shooting, he, unaware that Licup and
Villanueva were wounded, jumped out of the jeepney when he saw
from behind them Pamintuan emerging from the yard of Naron’s
house. Frantic and shaken, he instantaneously introduced himself
and his companions to be employees of San Miguel Corporation but
instead, Pamintuan reproved them for not stopping when flagged. At
this point, he was distracted when Villanueva cried out and told him
to summon Salangsang for help as he (Villanueva) and Licup were
wounded. He dashed back to Salangsang’s house as instructed and,
returning to the scene, he observed that peti-

_______________
17 TSN, April 30, 1991, pp. 27-30, 32-34, 37-40, 42-50, 52-53; TSN, July 5,
1991, pp. 20-22.
18 Id.; Id.; TSN, May 2, 1991, pp. 25-26.
19 Exhibits “L,” “L-1” to “L-5.”

429

VOL. 674, JUNE 25, 2012 429

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

tioner Yu was also there, and Villanueva and Licup were being
loaded into a Sarao jeepney to be taken to the hospital.20 This was
corroborated by Villanueva who stated that as soon as the firing had
ceased, two armed men, together with Pamintuan, approached them
and transferred him and Licup to another jeepney and taken to the
nearby St. Francis Hospital.21
 Flores remembered that there were two sudden bursts of gunfire
which very rapidly succeeded each other, and that they were given
no warning shot at all contrary to what the defense would say.22 He
professed that he, together with his co-passengers, were also aboard
the Sarao jeepney on its way to the hospital and inside it he observed
two men, each holding long firearms, seated beside the driver. He
continued that as soon as he 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.23 He further narrated
that the day after the shooting, he brought Licup to the Makati
Medical Center where the latter expired on April 7, 1988.24 He
claimed that all the accused in the case 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 nor
with the other accused for that matter, which would have otherwise
inspired ill motives.25 He claimed the bullet holes on the Tamaraw
jeepney were on the passenger side and that there were no other
bullet holes at the back or in any other portion of the vehicle.26

_______________
20 TSN, May 2, 1991, pp. 6-13, 15-17-19, 22-25, 26-29, 45-46, 52-53; TSN, July
5, 1991, pp. 38-46; 48-49.
21 TSN, April 30, 1991, pp. 27-30, 32-34, 37-40, 42-50, 52-53; TSN, July 5,
1991, pp. 20-22.
22 TSN, May 2, 1991, pp. 25-26.
23 Id., at pp. 31-32, 44-45, 51.
24 Id., at pp. 37 and 55.
25 Id., at p. 16.
26 Id., at pp. 57-59.

430

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

Salangsang, also an electrician at the San Miguel Corporation

plant, affirmed the presence of his companions at his residence on
the subject date and time, and corroborated Villanueva’s and Flores’
narration of the events immediately preceding the shooting. He
recounted that after seeing off his guests shortly after the procession
had passed his house and reminding them to proceed carefully on
the pothole-studded roads, he was alarmed when moments later, he
heard a volley of gunfire from a distance which was shortly followed
by Flores’ frantic call for help. He immediately proceeded to the
scene on his bicycle and saw Pamintuan by the lamppost just outside
the gate of Naron’s house where, inside, he noticed a congregation
of more or less six people whom he could not recognize. 27 At this
point, he witnessed Licup and Villanueva being loaded into another
jeepney occupied by three men who appeared to be in uniform. He
then retrieved the keys of the Tamaraw jeepney from Villanueva and
decided to deliver it to his mother’s house, but before driving off, he
allegedly 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. He claimed he spent the night at
his mother’s house and in the morning, a policeman came looking
for him with whom, however, he was not able to talk.28
Salangsang observed that the scene of the incident was dark
because the electric post in front of Naron’s house was strangely not
lit when he arrived, and that none of the neighboring houses was
illuminated. He admitted his uncertainty as to whether it was
Yapyuco’s group or the group of Pamintuan that brought his injured
companions to the hospital, but he could tell with certainty that it
was the Sarao

_______________
27 TSN, July 23, 1991, pp. 38-41; TSN, May 3, 1991, pp. 4-10, 18, 27, 29.
28 Id., at pp. 17-20, 24-26, 41-47; id., at pp. 10-14, 18-23.

431

VOL. 674, JUNE 25, 2012 431

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

jeepney previously identified by Villanueva and Flores that brought

his injured companions to the hospital.29
Daisy Dabor, forensic chemist at the Philippine National Police
Crime Laboratory in Camp Olivas, affirmed that she had previously
examined the firearms suspected to have been used by petitioners in
the shooting and found them positive for gunpowder residue. She
could not, however, determine exactly when the firearms were
discharged; neither could she tell how many firearms were
discharged that night nor the relative positions of the gunmen. She
admitted having declined to administer paraffin test on petitioners
and on the other accused because the opportunity therefor came only
72 hours after the incident. She affirmed having also examined the
Tamaraw jeepney and found eleven (11) bullet holes on it, most of
which had punctured the door at the passenger side of the vehicle at
oblique and perpendicular directions. She explained, rather
inconclusively, that the bullets that hit at an angle might have been
fired while the jeepney was either at a standstill or moving forward
in a straight line, or gradually making a turn at the curve on the
road.30 Additionally, Silvestre Lapitan, administrative and supply
officer of the INP-Pampanga Provincial Command tasked with the
issuance of firearms and ammunitions to members of the local police
force and CHDF and CVO members, identified in court the
memorandum receipts for the firearms he had issued to Mario
Reyes, Andres Reyes, Manguerra, Pabalan and Yapyuco.31
Dr. Pedro Solis, Jr., medico-legal consultant at the Makati
Medical Center, examined the injuries of Villanueva and Licup on
April 6, 1988. He recovered multiple metal shrapnel

_______________
29 TSN, May 3, 1991, pp. 14-15.
30 TSN, July 24, 1991, pp. 38-40, 47-55; TSN, November 26, 1991, pp. 4-8, 10-
14, 19-20. See Technical Report No. PI-032-88, Exhibit “J.”
31 TSN, April 30, 1991, pp. 17-19. See Memorandum Receipts, Exhibits D, E, F,
G, H.

432

432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

from the occipital region of Villanueva’s head as well as from the

posterior aspect of his chest; he noted nothing serious in these
wounds in that the incapacity would last between 10 and 30 days
only. He also located a bullet wound on the front lateral portion of
the right thigh, and he theorized that this wound would be caused by
a firearm discharged in front of the victim, assuming the assailant
and the victim were both standing upright on the ground and the
firearm was fired from the level of the assailant’s waist; but if the
victim was seated, the position of his thigh must be horizontal so
that with the shot coming from his front, the trajectory of the bullet
would be upward. He hypothesized that if the shot would come
behind Villanueva, the bullet would enter the thigh of the seated
victim and exit at a lower level.32
With respect to Licup, Dr. Solis declared he was still alive when
examined. On the patient, he noted a lacerated wound at the right
temporal region of the head—one consistent with being hit by a hard
and blunt object and not a bullet. He noted three (3) gunshot wounds
the locations of which suggested that Licup was upright when fired
upon from the front: one is a through-and-through wound in the
middle lateral aspect of the middle portion of the right leg; another,
through-and-through wound at the middle portion of the right
forearm; and third one, a wound in the abdomen which critically and
fatally involved the stomach and the intestines. He hypothesized that
if Licup was seated in the passenger seat as claimed, his right leg
must have been exposed and the assailant must have been in front of
him holding the gun slightly higher than the level of the bullet entry
in the leg. He found that the wound in the abdomen had entered
from the left side and crossed over to and exited at the right, which
suggested that the gunman must have been positioned at Licup’s left
side. He explained that if this wound had been inflicted ahead
 _______________
32 TSN, October 22, 1991, pp. 7, 10-11, 13-20, 42-43, 49-50. Dr. Pedro Solis
appears to have authored a book on legal Medicine in 1964. See Medico-legal Report
dated April 6, 1988, Exhibit I.

433

VOL. 674, JUNE 25, 2012 433

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

of that in the forearm, then the former must have been fired after
Licup had changed his position as a reaction to the first bullet that
hit him. He said that the wound on the leg must have been caused by
a bullet fired at the victim’s back and hit the jeepney at a downward
angle without hitting any hard surface prior.33
Dr. Solis believed that the wound on Licup’s right forearm must
have been caused by a bullet fired from the front but slightly
obliquely to the right of the victim. Hypothesizing, he held the
improbability of Licup being hit on the abdomen, considering that
he might have changed position following the infliction of the other
wounds, unless there was more than one assailant who fired multiple
shots from either side of the Tamaraw jeepney; however, he
proceeded to rule out the possibility of Licup having changed
position especially if the gunfire was delivered very rapidly. He
could not tell which of Licup’s three wounds was first inflicted, yet it
could be that the bullet to the abdomen was delivered ahead of the
others because it would have caused Licup to lean forward and stoop
down with his head lying low and steady.34
Finally, Atty. Victor Bartolome, hearing officer at the National
Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) affirmed that the accused police
officers Yapyuco, Cunanan and Puno had been administratively
charged with and tried for gross misconduct as a consequence of the
subject shooting incident and that he had in fact conducted
investigations thereon sometime in 1989 and 1990 which culminated
in their dismissal from service.35 Dolly Porqueriño, stenographer at
the NAPOLCOM, testified that at the hearing of the administrative
case, Yapyuco authenticated the report on the shooting incident
dated April 5, 1988 which he had previously prepared at his office.
This, according to her, together with the sketch show-

_______________
33 TSN, October 22, 1991, pp. 21-23, 26-28, 30-34, 37-42, 50-53.
34 Id., at pp. 44-48.
35 TSN, October 7, 1991, pp. 12, 14-15.

434
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

ing the relative position of the responding law enforcers and the
Tamaraw jeepney at the scene of the incident, had been forwarded to
the NAPOLCOM Central Office for consideration.36 The
Sandiganbayan, in fact, subpoenaed these documents together with
the joint counter-affidavits which had been submitted in that case by
Yapyuco, Cunanan and Puno.
Of all the accused, only Yapyuco took the stand for the defense.
He identified himself as the commander of the Sindalan Police
Substation in San Fernando, Pampanga and the superior officer of
petitioners Cunanan and Puno and of the accused Yu whose
jurisdiction included Barangays Quebiawan and Telebastagan. He
narrated that in the afternoon of April 5, 1988, he and his men were
investigating a physical injuries case when Yu suddenly received a
summon for police assistance from David, who supposedly was
instructed by Pamintuan, concerning a reported presence of armed
NPA members in Quebiawan. Yapyuco allegedly called on their
main station in San Fernando for reinforcement but at the time no
additional men could be dispatched. Hence, he decided to respond
and instructed his men to put on their uniforms and bring their M-16
rifles with them.37
Yapyuco continued that at the place appointed, he and his group
met with Pamintuan who told him that he had earlier spotted four (4)
men carrying long firearms. As if sizing up their collective strength,
Pamintuan allegedly intimated that he and barangay captain Mario
Reyes of nearby Del Carmen had also brought in a number of armed
men and that there were likewise Cafgu members convened at the
residence of Naron. 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

_______________
36 TSN, October 25, 1991, pp. 17-44.
37 TSN, September 15, 1993, pp. 5-12; TSN, November 8, 1993, p. 10.

435

VOL. 674, JUNE 25, 2012 435

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

the jeepney came much closer, Pamintuan announced that it was the
target vehicle, so he, with Cunanan and Puno behind him, 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
allegedly inspired him, and his fellow police officers Cunanan and
Puno,38 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 Naron’s house directly at the subject jeepney.39
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.40
Yapyuco explained that the peace and order situation in Barangay
Quebiawan at the time was in bad shape, as in fact there were
several law enforcement officers in the area who

_______________
38 Memorandum of Cunanan and Puno filed with the Sandiganbayan, Rollo (G.R.
No. 122776), p. 126.
39 TSN, September 15, 1993, pp. 13-15, 18-21; TSN, November 8, 1993, pp. 3, 5,
12, 23-25, 31. See also Joint Counter Affidavit of Cunanan and Puno, dated July 20,
1988, in which they stated that their “team was forced to fire at the said vehicle” when
it did not heed the supposed warning shots, Exhibit “A.” In their earlier Joint
Affidavit dated April 5, 1988, Yapyuco, Cunanan and Puno stated that after firing
warning shots in the air, the subject jeepney accelerated its speed which “constrained
(them) to fire directly to (sic) the said fleeing vehicle, Exhibit “O.”
40 TSN, September 15, 1993, pp. 22-23; TSN, November 8, 1993, pp. 6-7, 10-11,
21-23.

436

436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

had been ambushed supposedly by rebel elements,41 and that he

frequently patrolled the barangay on account of reported sightings of
unidentified armed men therein.42 That night, he said, his group
which responded to the scene were twelve (12) in all, comprised of
Cunanan and Puno from the Sindalan Police Substation, 43 the team
composed of Pamintuan and his men, as well as the team headed by
Captain Mario Reyes. He admitted that all of them, including
himself, were armed.44 He denied that they had committed an
ambuscade because otherwise, all the occupants of the Tamaraw
jeepney would have been killed.45 He said that the shots which
directly hit the passenger door of the jeepney did not come from him
or from his fellow police officers but rather from Cafgu members
assembled in the residence of Naron, inasmuch as said shots were
fired only when the jeepney had gone past the spot on the road
where they were assembled.46
Furthermore, Yapyuco professed that he had not communicated
with any one of the accused after the incident because he was at the
time very confused; yet he did know that his co-accused had already
been investigated by the main police station in San Fernando, but the
inquiries did not include himself, Cunanan and Puno.47 He admitted
an administrative case against him, Cunanan and Puno at the close
of which they had been ordered dismissed from service; yet on
appeal, the decision was reversed and they were exonerated. He
likewise alluded to an investigation independently conducted by
their station commander, S/Supt. Rolando Cinco.48

_______________
41 Id., at pp. 23-25; Id., at p. 4.
42 TSN, November 8, 1993, pp. 12, 15-16.
43 Id., at pp. 6-7.
44 TSN, September 15, 1993, p. 23; TSN, November 8, 1993,
pp. 7-8, 10-11, 20.
45 TSN, November 8, 1993, p. 5.
46 Id., at pp. 8-9.
47 Id., at pp. 21-23.
48 TSN, September 15, 1993, pp. 26-29.

437

VOL. 674, JUNE 25, 2012 437

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

S/Supt Rolando Cinco, then Station Commander of the INP in

San Fernando, Pampanga acknowledged the volatility of the peace
and order situation in his jurisdiction, where members of the police
force had fallen victims of ambuscade by lawless elements. He said
that he himself has actually conducted investigations on the
Pamintuan report that rebel elements had been trying to infiltrate the
employment force of San Miguel Corporation plant, and that he has
accordingly conducted “clearing operations” in sugarcane
plantations in the barangay. He intimated that days prior to the
incident, Yapyuco’s team had already been alerted of the presence of
NPA members in the area. Corroborating Yapyuco’s declaration, he
confessed having investigated the shooting incident and making a
report on it in which, curiously, was supposedly attached
Pamintuan’s statement referring to Flores as being “married to a
resident of Barangay Quebiawan” and found after surveillance to be
“frequently visited by NPA members.” He affirmed having found
that guns were indeed fired that night and that the chief investigator
was able to gather bullet shells from the scene.49
 Cunanan and Puno did not take the witness stand but adopted the
testimony of Yapyuco as well as the latter’s documentary
evidence.50 Mario Reyes, Andres Reyes, Lugtu, Lacson, Yu and
Manguera, waived their right to present evidence and submitted their
memorandum as told.51
The Sandiganbayan reduced the basic issue to whether the
accused had acted in the regular and lawful performance of their
duties in the maintenance of peace and order either as barangay
officials and as members of the police and the CHDF, and hence,
could take shelter in the justifying circumstance provided in Article
11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code; or

_______________
49 TSN, November 22, 1993, pp. 26-36, 40-43, 46-47.
50 See Order dated April 6, 1994, records, Vol. II, p. 955.
51 See Manifestation and Motion dated May 6, 1993, id., at pp. 759-761, and
Resolution dated June 1, 1993, id., at pp. 763-764.

438

438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

whether they had deliberately ambushed the victims with the intent
of killing them.52 With the evidence in hand, it found Yapyuco,
Cunanan, Puno, Manguera and Mario and Andres Reyes guilty as
co-principals in the separate offense of homicide for the eventual
death of Licup (instead of murder as charged in Criminal Case No.
16612) and of attempted homicide for the injury sustained by
Villanueva (instead of frustrated murder as charged in Criminal Case
No. 16614), and acquitted the rest in those cases. It acquitted all of
them of attempted murder charged in Criminal Case No. 16613 in
respect of Flores, Panlican, De Vera and Calma. The dispositive
portion of the June 30, 1995 Joint Decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
I. In Crim. Case No. 16612, accused Salvador Yapyuco y Enriquez, Generoso
Cunanan, Jr. y Basco, Ernesto Puno y Tungol, Mario Reyes y David, Andres
Reyes y Salangsang and Virgilio Manguerra y Adona are hereby found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the offense of Homicide, as defined
and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, and crediting all of
them with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, without any
aggravating circumstance present or proven, each of said accused is hereby
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from SIX (6) YEARS and
ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as the minimum, to TWELVE (12)
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as the maximum; to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased victim Leodevince
Licup in the amounts of P77,000.00 as actual damages and P600,000.00 as
 moral/exemplary damages, and to pay their proportionate shares of the costs of
said action.
II. In Crim. Case No. 16613, for insufficiency of evidence, all the accused charged in
the information, namely, Salvador Yapyuco y Enriquez, Generoso Cunanan, Jr. y
Basco, Ernesto Puno y Tungol, Mario Reyes y David, Carlos David y Bañez,
Ruben Lugtu y Lacson, Moises Lacson y Adona, Renato Yu y Barrera,

_______________

52 Rollo (G.R. Nos. 120744-46), p. 55.

439

VOL. 674, JUNE 25, 2012 439

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

Andres Reyes y Salangsang and Virgilio Manguerra y Adona are hereby acquitted
of the offense of Multiple Attempted Murder charged therein, with costs de
oficio.
III. In Crim. Case No. 16614, accused Salvador Yapyuco y Enriquez, Generoso
Cunanan, Jr. y Basco, Ernesto Puno y Tungol, Mario Reyes y David, Andres
Reyes y Salangsang and Virgilio Manguerra y Adona are hereby found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in the offense Attempted
Homicide, as defined and penalized under Article 249, in relation to Article 6,
paragraph 3, both of the Revised Penal Code, and crediting them with the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, without any aggravating
circumstance present or proven, each of said accused is hereby sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1)
DAY of prision correccional as the minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS and ONE
(1) DAY of prision mayor as the maximum; to indemnify, jointly and
severally, the offended party Noel Villanueva in the amount of P51,700.00 as
actual and compensatory damages, plus P120,000.00 as moral/exemplary
damages, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs of said action.
SO ORDERED.”53

The Sandiganbayan declared that the shootout which caused

injuries to Villanueva and which brought the eventual death of Licup
has been committed by petitioners herein willfully under the guise of
maintaining peace and order;54 that the acts performed by them
preparatory to the shooting, which ensured the execution of their
evil plan without risk to themselves, demonstrate a clear intent to
kill the occupants of the subject vehicle; that the fact they had by
collective action deliberately and consciously intended to inflict
harm and injury and had voluntarily performed those acts negates
their defense of lawful performance of official duty;55 that the the-

_______________
53 Id., at pp. 77-79.
54 Id., at pp. 56-57.
55 Id., at pp. 64-66.
 440

440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

ory of mistaken belief could not likewise benefit petitioners because

there was supposedly no showing that they had sufficient basis or
probable cause to rely fully on Pamintuan’s report that the victims
were armed NPA members, and they have not been able by evidence
to preclude ulterior motives or gross inexcusable negligence when
they acted as they did;56 that there was insufficient or total absence
of factual basis to assume that the occupants of the jeepney were
members of the NPA or criminals for that matter; and that the
shooting incident could not have been the product of a well-planned
and well-coordinated police operation but was the result of either a
hidden agenda concocted by Barangay Captains Mario Reyes and
Pamintuan, or a hasty and amateurish attempt to gain
commendation.57
These findings obtain context principally from the open court
statements of prosecution witnesses Villanueva, Flores and
Salangsang, particularly on the circumstances prior to the subject
incident. The Sandiganbayan pointed out that the Tamaraw jeepney
would have indeed stopped if it had truly been flagged down as
claimed by Yapyuco especially since—as it turned out after the
search of the vehicle—they had no firearms with them, and hence,
they had nothing to be scared of.58 It observed that while Salangsang
and Flores had been bona fide residents of Barangay Quebiawan,
then it would be impossible for Pamintuan, barangay captain no less,
not to have known them and the location of their houses which were
not far from the scene of the incident; so much so that the presence
of the victims and of the Tamaraw jeepney in Salangsang’s house
that evening could not have possibly escaped his notice. In this
regard, it noted that Pamintuan’s Sworn Statement dated April 11,
1988 did not sufficiently explain his suspicions as to the identities of
the victims as well as his apparent certainty on the identity and
where-

_______________
56 Id., at pp. 69-70.
57 Id., at pp. 64-65.
58 Id., at p. 61.

441

VOL. 674, JUNE 25, 2012 441

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan
abouts of the subject Tamaraw jeepney. 59 It surmised how the
defense, especially Yapyuco in his testimony, could have failed to
explain why a large group of armed men—which allegedly included
Cafgu members from neighboring barangays—were assembled at
the house of Naron that night, and how petitioners were able to
identify the Tamaraw jeepney to be the target vehicle. From this, it
inferred that petitioners had already known that their suspect vehicle
would be coming from the direction of Salangsang’s house—such
knowledge is supposedly evident first, in the manner by which they
advantageously positioned themselves at the scene to afford a direct
line of fire at the target vehicle, and second, in the fact that the house
of Naron, the neighboring houses and the electric post referred to by
prosecution witnesses were deliberately not lit that night.60
The Sandiganbayan also drew information from Flores’ sketch
depicting the position of the Tamaraw jeepney and the assailants on
the road, and concluded that judging by the bullet holes on the right
side of the jeepney and by the declarations of Dr. Solis respecting
the trajectory of the bullets that hit Villanueva and Licup, the
assailants were inside the yard of Naron’s residence and the shots
were fired at the jeepney while it was slowly moving past them. It
also gave weight to the testimony and the report of Dabor telling that
the service firearms of petitioners had been tested and found to be
positive of gunpowder residue, therefore indicating that they had
indeed been discharged.61
The Sandiganbayan summed up what it found to be
overwhelming circumstantial evidence pointing to the culpability of
petitioners: the nature and location of the bullet holes on the jeepney
and the gunshot wounds on the victims, as well as the trajectory of
the bullets that caused such damage and

_______________
59 Id., at p. 58.
60 Id., at pp. 60-61.
61 Id., at pp. 60-63.

442

442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

injuries; particularly, the number, location and trajectory of the

bullets that hit the front passenger side of the jeepney; the strategic
placement of the accused on the right side of the street and inside the
front yard of Naron’s house; the deliberate shutting off of the lights
in the nearby houses and the lamp post; and the positive ballistic
findings on the firearms of petitioners.62
This evidentiary resumé, according to the Sandiganbayan, not
only fortified petitioners’ admission that they did discharge their
firearms, but also provided a predicate to its conclusion that
petitioners conspired with one another to achieve a common
purpose, design and objective to harm the unarmed and innocent
victims. Thus, since there was no conclusive proof of who among
the several accused had actually fired the gunshots that injured
Villanueva and fatally wounded Licup, the Sandiganbayan imposed
collective responsibility on all those who were shown to have
discharged their firearms that night—petitioners herein.63
Interestingly, it was speculated that the manner by which the accused
collectively and individually acted prior or subsequent to or
contemporaneously with the shooting indicated that they were either
drunk or that some, if not all of them, had a grudge against the
employees of San Miguel Corporation;64 and that on the basis of the
self-serving evidence adduced by the defense, there could possibly
have been a massive cover-up of the incident by Philippine
Constabulary and INP authorities in Pampanga as well as by the
NAPOLCOM.65 It likewise found very consequential the fact that
the other accused had chosen not to take the witness stand; this,
supposedly because it was incumbent upon them to individually
explain their participation in the shooting in view of the weight of
the prosecution evidence, their invocation of the

_______________
62 Id., at pp. 73-74.
63 Id., at pp. 74-75.
64 Id., at pp. 64-65.
65 Id., at p. 69.

443

VOL. 674, JUNE 25, 2012 443

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

justifying circumstance of lawful performance of official duty and

the declaration of some of them in their affidavits to the effect that
they had been deployed that evening in the front yard of Naron’s
residence from which the volley of gunfire was discharged as
admitted by Yapyuco himself.66
As to the nature of the offenses committed, the Sandiganbayan
found that the qualifying circumstance of treachery has not been
proved because first, it was supposedly not shown how the
aggression commenced and how the acts causing injury to
Villanueva and fatally injuring 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 from Pamintuan through David and the time
he and his men responded at the scene, there was found to be no
sufficient time to allow for the materialization of all the elements of
that circumstance.67
Finally as to damages, Villanueva had testified that his injury
required leave from work for 60 days which were all charged against
his accumulated leave credits;68 that he was earning P8,350.00
monthly;69 and that he had spent P35,000.00 for the repair of his
Tamaraw jeepney.70 Also, Teodoro Licup had stated that his family
had spent P18,000.00 for the funeral of his son, P28,000.00 during
the wake, P11,000.00 for the funeral plot and P20,000.00 in
attorney’s fees for the prosecution of these cases.71 He also
submitted a certification from San Miguel Corporation reflecting

_______________
66 Id., at pp. 68-69.
67 Id., at pp. 71-73.
68 Exhibit “X.”
69 TSN, July 5, 1991, pp. 7-9, 27.
70 Id., at pp. 11-12, 17.
71 TSN, January 9, 1991, pp. 4-12.

444

444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

the income of his deceased son.72 On these bases, the

Sandiganbayan ordered petitioners, jointly and severally, to
indemnify (a) Villanueva P51,700.00 as actual and compensatory
damages and P120,000.00 as moral/exemplary damages, plus the
proportionate costs of the action, and (b) the heirs of deceased Licup
in the amount of P77,000.00 as actual damages and P600,000.00 as
moral/exemplary damages, plus the proportionate costs of the action.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, the
present recourse.
In G.R. Nos. 120744-46, Yapyuco disputes the Sandiganbayan’s
finding of conspiracy and labels the same to be conjectural. He
points out that the court a quo has not clearly established that he had
by positive acts intended to participate in any criminal object in
common with the other accused, and that his participation in a
supposed common criminal object has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt. He believes the finding is belied by Flores and
Villanueva, who saw him at the scene only after the shooting
incident when the wounded passengers were taken to the hospital on
his jeepney.73 He also points out the uncertainty in the
Sandiganbayan’s declaration that the incident could not have been
the product of a well-planned police operation, but rather was the
result of either a hidden agenda concocted against the victims by the
barangay officials involved or an amateurish attempt on their part to
earn commendation. He theorizes that, if it were the latter
alternative, then he could hardly be found guilty of homicide or
frustrated homicide but rather of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide and frustrated homicide.74 He laments that, assuming
arguendo that the injuries sustained by the victims were caused by
his warning shots, he must nevertheless be exonerated because he
responded to the scene

_______________
72 Exhibit “FF.”
73 Rollo (G.R. Nos. 120744-46), p. 96.
74 Id., at pp. 93-95.

445

VOL. 674, JUNE 25, 2012 445

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

of the incident as a bona fide member of the police force and, hence,
his presence at the scene of the incident was in line with the
fulfillment of his duty as he was in fact in the lawful performance
thereof—a fact which has been affirmed by the NAPOLCOM en
banc when it dismissed on appeal the complaint for gross
misconduct against him, Cunanan and Puno.75 He also invokes the
concept of mistake of fact and attributes to Pamintuan the
responsibility why he, as well as the other accused in these cases,
had entertained the belief that the suspects were armed rebel
elements.76
In G.R. No. 122677, petitioners Manguerra, Mario Reyes and
Andres Reyes claim that the Sandiganbayan has not proved their
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the assailed decision was based
on acts the evidence for which has been adduced at a separate trial
but erroneously attributed to them. They explain that there were two
sets of accused, in the case: one, the police officers comprised of
Yapyuco, Cunanan and Puno and, two, the barangay officials and
CHDFs comprised of David, Lugtu, Lacson, Yu and themselves who
had waived the presentation of evidence. They question their
conviction of the charges vis-a-vis the acquittal of David, Lugtu,
Lacson and Yu who, like them, were barangay officials and had
waived their right to present evidence in their behalf. They
emphasize in this regard that all accused barangay officials and
CHDFs did not participate in the presentation of the evidence by the
accused police officers and, hence, the finding that they too had fired
upon the Tamaraw jeepney is hardly based on an established fact.77
Also, they believe that the findings of fact by the Sandiganbayan
were based on inadmissible evidence, specifically on evidence
rejected by the court itself and those presented in a separate trial.
They label the assailed decision to be speculative, conjectural and
suspicious and, hence, antithetical to the quantum of evidence

_______________
75 Id., at p. 108.
76 Id., at p. 103.
77 Rollo (G.R. No. 122677), pp. 57-65.

446

446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

required in a criminal prosecution.78 Finally, they lament that the

finding of conspiracy has no basis in evidence and that the
prosecution has not even shown that they were with the other
accused at the scene of the incident or that they were among those
who fired at the victims, and neither were they identified as among
the perpetrators of the crime.79
In G.R. No. 122776, Cunanan and Puno likewise dispute the
finding of conspiracy. They claim that judging by the uncertainty in
the conclusion of the Sandiganbayan as to whether the incident was
the result of a legitimate police operation or a careless plot designed
by the accused to obtain commendation, conspiracy has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt. This, because they believe the
prosecution has not, as far as both of them are concerned, shown that
they had ever been part of such malicious design to commit an
ambuscade as that alluded to in the assailed decision. They advance
that as police officers, they merely followed orders from their
commander, Yapyuco, but were not privy to the conversation among
the latter, David and Pamintuan, moments before the shooting. They
posit they could hardly be assumed to have had community of
criminal design with the rest of the accused.80 They affirm
Yapyuco’s statement that they fired warning shots at the subject
jeepney,81 but only after it had passed the place where they were
posted and only after it failed to stop when flagged down as it then
became apparent that it was going to speed away—as supposedly
shown by bullet holes on the chassis and not on the rear portion of
the jeepney. They also harp on the absence of proof of ill motives
that would have otherwise urged them to commit the crimes
charged, especially since none of the victims had been personally or
even remotely known to either of them. That they were not intending
to commit a crime is, they be-

_______________
78 Id., at pp. 75-81.
 79 Id., at pp. 82-89.
80 Rollo (G.R. No. 122776), pp. 101-103.
81 Id.

447

VOL. 674, JUNE 25, 2012 447

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

lieve, shown by the fact that they did not directly aim their rifles at
the passengers of the jeepney and that in fact, they immediately held
their fire when Flores identified themselves as employees of San
Miguel Corporation. They conceded that if killing was their intent,
then they could have easily fired at the victims directly.82
Commenting on these petitions, the Office of the Special
Prosecutor stands by the finding of conspiracy as established by the
fact that all accused, some of them armed, had assembled
themselves and awaited the suspect vehicle as though having
previously known that it would be coming from Salangsang’s
residence. It posits that the manner by which the jeepney was fired
upon demonstrates a community of purpose and design to commit
the crimes charged.83 It believes that criminal intent is discernible
from the posts the accused had chosen to take on the road that would
give them a direct line of fire at the target—as shown by the
trajectories of the bullets that hit the Tamaraw jeepney.84 This intent
was supposedly realized when after the volley of gunfire, both
Flores and Licup were wounded and the latter died as a supervening
consequence.85 It refutes the invocation of lawful performance of
duty, mainly because there was no factual basis to support the belief
of the accused that the occupants were members of the NPA, as
indeed they have not shown that they had previously verified the
whereabouts of the suspect vehicle. But while it recognizes that the
accused had merely responded to the call of duty when summoned
by Pamintuan through David, it is convinced that they had exceeded
the performance thereof when they fired upon the Tamaraw jeepney
occupied, as it turned out, by innocent individuals instead.86

_______________
82 Id., at pp. 104-106.
83 Id., at pp. 223-225.
84 Id., at pp. 226-227.
85 Id., at pp. 227-228.
86 Id., at pp. 228-230.

448

448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan

As to the contention of Mario Reyes, Andres Reyes and

Manguerra that the evidence adduced before the Sandiganbayan as
well the findings based thereon should not be binding on them, the
OSP explains that said petitioners, together with Pamintuan, David,
Lugtu, Lacson and Yu, had previously withdrawn their motion for
separate trial and as directed later on submitted the case for decision
as to them with the filing of their memorandum. It asserts there was
no denial of due process to said petitioners in view of their
agreement for the reproduction of the evidence on the motion for
bail at the trial proper as well as by their manifestation to forego
with the presentation of their own evidence. The righ