Facts:

Policeman (PO2) Rufino Mamangun was responding to a robbery-holdup call, with his fellow police
officers, at Brgy. Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan. A certain Liberty Contreras was heard shouting, which
prompted residents to respond and chase the suspect, who entered the yard and proceeded to the
rooftop of Antonio Abacan. Mamangun, with PO2 Diaz and Cruz, each armed with a drawn handgun,
searched the rooftop and saw a man who they thought was the robbery suspect. Mamangun, who was
ahead of the group, fired his gun once and hit the man, who turned out to be Gener Contreras (not the
suspect) Contreras died of the gunshot wound.

According to the lone witness Crisanto Ayson, he accompanied the policemen to the lighted rooftop. He
was beside Mamangun when he (Ayson) recognized the deceased. According to Ayson, Mamangun
pointed his gun at the man, who instantly exclaimed Hindi ako, hindi ako! to which Mamangun
replied, Anong hindi ako? and shot him.

The defense rejects this testimony, alleging that they were the only ones at the dark rooftop when
Mamangun noticed a crouching man who suddenly continued to run. Mamangun shouted Pulis, tigil!
whereupon the person stopped and raised a steel pipe towards Mamanguns head. This prompted
Mamangun to shoot the person. The three police claim that Contreras only said Hindi ako, hindi ako
only when they approached him. Mamangun then asked Why did you go to the rooftop? You know
there are policemen here. Mamangun reported the incident to the desk officer who directed
investigator Hernando Banez to investigate the incident. Banez later on found a steel pipe on the roof.

Issue:

W/N the death of the victim was the necessary consequence of the petitioners fulfillment of his duty

Held:

No. The Court denies the instant petition and affirms Sandiganbayans decision after finding the
petitioners testimony to be nothing but a concocted story designed to evade criminal liability. Per
Sandiganbayans observations, the defense was self-serving for the accused and biased with respect to
his co-policemen-witnesses because:

1. After supposed introductions and forewarnings uttered allegedly by Mamangun, it is contrary to

human experience for a man (who is not the suspect) to attack one of three policemen with
drawn guns

2. Mamanguns admission that he did not ask the victim Why did you try to hit me, if you are not
the one? clearly belies their claim

3. The location of the entry of bullet belies their claim because it appears that the victim
instinctively shielded himself instead
Additionally, petitioners pretense that Contreras struck him was not initially reported to the desk and
was only conveniently remembered when the investigator found a pipe in the crime scene.

The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under paragraph 5, Article II, of the Revised Penal Code
may be invoked only after the defense successfully proves that: (1) the accused acted in the
performance of a duty; and (2) the injury inflicted or offense committed is the necessary consequence of
the due performance or lawful exercise of such duty.

Concededly, the first requisite is present in this case. Petitioner, a police officer, was responding to a
robbery-holdup incident. His presence at the situs of the crime was in accordance with the performance
of his duty. However, proof that the shooting and ultimate death of Contreras was a necessary
consequence of the due performance of his duty as a policeman is essential to exempt him from
criminal liability.

there was no reason for the petitioner to shoot Contreras. The latter was unarmed and had already
uttered, Hindi po ako, Hindi po ako before the petitioner fatally shot him on the left arm.

Acts in the fulfillment of duty and self-defense does not completely justify the petitioners firing the fatal
gunshot. The element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was absent, which leads to the
failure of the petitioners plea. Also, there can only be incomplete justification (a privileged mitigating
circumstance) in the absence of a necessary justifying circumstance the injury was caused by necessary
consequence of due performance of duty.