Yapyuco v.

Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 120744-46, June 25, 2012
FACTS:
The accused-petitioners were members of the Integrated National Police (INP) stationed
at the Sindalan Substation in San Fernando, barangay captains of Quebiawan and De,
Carmen members of the Civil Home Defense Force (CHDF) or civilian volunteer officers
in Barangays Quebiawan, Del Carmen and Telebastagan. They allegedly received
information concerning a reported presence of armed NPA members in Quebiawan. It
was so unfortunate that the Tamaraw jeepney conveying the victims would make an
inevitable turn to which the accused all await. Believing that the victims were the armed
NPA members, the accused opened fire to the passengers of the said Tamaraw. Such
shooting incident on April 5, 1988 in Barangay Quebiawan, San Fernando, Pampanga
caused the death of Leodevince Licup (Licup) and injured Noel Villanueva (Villanueva).
The accused were all charged with murder, multiple attempted murder and frustrated
murder. Upon conviction, Yapyuco disputed that he cannot be exonerated since he
responded to the scene in fulfillment of his duty as a member of the police force and he
invoked mistake of fact as caused by his co-accused in the belief that the victims are
members of the NPA.

ISSUES: (1) Whether the principle of Mistake of Fact is applicable in the instant case.
(2) Whether the petitioner can be award with the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of
duty or lawful exercise of a right or office.

RULING:
(1) No, the principle of Mistake of fact is not applicable. 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. In the present
case, he relied merely on the statement of his co-accused therefore it cannot be invoked

(2) No, he cannot be awarded of the justifying circumstance. The said justifying
circumstance 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. In the present case, their duty is supposed to be
the validation of the information that they received and not to immediately fire at the
victims. Bloodless arrest can even be achieved when they have validated the information.
Failing to meet the requisites, the petitioner cannot be award of the justifying
circumstance.