PEOPLE v.

ULEP
G.R. No. 132547
SEPTEMBER 20, 2000
J. BELLOSILLO

SUBJECT MATTER:
Criminal Liability; Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability; Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of Right

DOCTRINE AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT:

2 Requisites to successfully invoke Art. 11, par. 5 of the RPC:
1. He acted in the performance of a duty or in lawful exercise of a right or an office
2. The injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or
the lawful exercise of such right or office

LEGAL BASIS AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT:

ART 11 (5) of the RPC: Justifying Circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

Automatic review on the decision of the trial court to impose death penalty on Ulep for the crime of murder

Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines

Parties
Accused-appellant: SPO1 Ernesto Ulep

SUMMARY:
Buenaventura Wapila went crazy and ran amuck at Mundog Subdivision, Poblacion Kidapawan, Cotabato in the early
morning of December 22, 1995. His brother-in-law, Leydan, and 2 other neighbors attempted to tie Wapili with a rope, but
he overpowered them so Leydan asked for the assistance of a policewoman who lives nearby. The policewoman then
contacted other members of the police force to help pacify the situation in the area. SPO1 Ulep, together with 2 other
officers, arrived at the place and they then saw Wapili charging towards them. The officers warned Wapili but since the
latter continued advancing towards the them, SPO1 Ulep shot Wapili in various parts of the latter’s body. As Wapili
slumped to the ground, SPO1 Ulep came closer and fired another bullet into the victim’s head.

SPO1 was then found guilty of murder and was sentenced to death by the trial court. Ulep prayed for his acquittal mainly
on the basis of his claim that the killing of Wapili was in the course of the performance of his official duty as a police
officer. The Court, however, ruled that Wapili failed to satisfy the second requisite that the injury caused or the offense
committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty. Supreme Court said that the fatal wound to the
victim’s head cannot be a necessary consequence of the performance of an official duty.

ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● In the early morning of 22 December 1995, Buenaventura Wapili, who appeared to have completely gone crazy,
went beserk and kept on running without ay particular direction.
○ Leydan, Wapili’s brother-in-law, and 2 of their neighbors tried to tie Wapili but was unsuccessful as Wapili
was much bigger in built and stronger than anyone of them
● Leydan went to the house of a neighbor policewoman and asked for her assistance.
● The policewoman then contacted other members of the PNP.
● At around four o'clock in the morning of the same day, SPO1 Ulep, together with two police officers, arrived at the
scene.
○ All officers are armed with M-16 rifles
● The police officers saw the naked but armed Wapili approaching them.
BLOCK 1-H (CARIÑO) – CRIMINAL LAW 1, PROF. OYALES
 ○ The police claimed that Wapili was armed with a bolo and a rattan stool
○ While Wapili’s relatives and neighbors said that he had no bolo, but only a rattan stool
● SPO1 Ulep fired a warning shot in the air and told Wapili to put down his weapons or they would shoot him.
○ But Wapili retorted "pusila!" ("fire!") and continued advancing towards the police officers.
● When Wapili was only about two (2) to three (3) meters away from them, SPO1 Ulep shot the former with his rifle,
hitting him in various parts of his body.
● As Wapili slumped to the ground, SPO1 Ulep came closer and pumped another bullet into the victim’s head and
literally blew his brains out.
● The Office of the Ombudsman for the Military filed an Information for murder against SPO1 Ulep.
● The trial court found Ulep guilty of murder and sentenced him to death.
● Ulep’s contention
○ He claimed that the killing of the victim was in the course of the performance of his official duty as a police
officer, and in self-defense.

ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):

WON SPO1 Ulep acted in performance of his official duty as a police officer when he shot Wapili in the head when the
latter was already on the ground, thereby exempting him from criminal liability -- NO

RATIO:
Before the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty under Art. 11, par. 5, of The Revised Penal Code may be
successfully invoked, the accused must prove the presence of two (2) requisites, namely, that he acted in the
performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or an office, and that the injury caused or the offense
committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or
office. The second requisite is lacking in the instant case.
 According to the Court, there were two stages of the incident
o 1st Stage - the victim threatened the safety of the police officers by menacingly advancing towards them,
notwithstanding accused-appellant's previous warning shot and verbal admonition to the victim to lay
down his weapon or he would be shot.
 Ulep’s decision to respond with a barrage of gunfire to halt the victim's further advance was
justified under the circumstances
o 2nd Stage - Ulep fatally shot the victim in the head, perhaps in his desire to take no chances, even after
the latter slumped to the ground due to multiple gunshot wounds sustained while charging at the police
officers.
 The Court held that Ulep cannot be exonerated from overdoing his duty during the second stage
of the incident
 The victim at that point no longer posed a threat and was already incapable of mounting an
aggression against the police officers.
 Shooting him in the head was obviously unnecessary.
 It cannot therefore be said that the fatal wound in the head of the victim was a necessary consequence of
accused-appellant's due performance of a duty or the lawful exercise of a right or office

The Court further ruled that the claim of self-defense by the accused cannot be given merit.
 The elements in order for self-defense to be appreciated are:
o unlawful aggression on the part of the person injured or killed by the accused
o reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
o lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
 The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non. There can be no self-defense, complete or
incomplete, unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending himself.
o There was no more unlawful aggression when the victim was lying on the ground

Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusion of the court a quo that the killing of Wapili by accused-appellant was
attended by treachery, thus qualifying the offense to murder. The Court discern nothing from the evidence that the assault
BLOCK 1-H (CARIÑO) – CRIMINAL LAW 1, PROF. OYALES
was so sudden and unexpected and that accused-appellant deliberately adopted a mode of attack intended to insure the
killing of Wapili, without the victim having the opportunity to defend himself. Thus, the Court convicted Ulep with the crime
of Homicide instead of Murder.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Judgment is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant SPO1 ERNESTO ULEP is found guilty
of HOMICIDE, instead of Murder, and is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years, two (2) months and
ten (10) days of prison correccional medium as minimum, to six (6) years, four (4) months and twenty (20) days of prision
mayor minimum as maximum. He is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of Buenaventura Wapili in the amount of
P50,000.00, and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

BLOCK 1-H (CARIÑO) – CRIMINAL LAW 1, PROF. OYALES