REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff,

Criminal Case No. 123

-vs-

FOR:

PO3 SELVI accused.

MURDER

X---------------------- X
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, thru counsel, respectfully alleges that:
Respondent, PO3 Jose, a police officer, who responded to the call of duty on the 23rd of
November 2014, committed the crime of Murder with treachery penalized under Article
248, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
According to a decision rendered by the Supreme Court n the case of People vs
Dela Cruz, for treachery to be considered present, two elements must concur:
(1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked
no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and
(2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
All the elements of treachery are present in this case. First, Jose, the victim, had
no means to defend himself given the fact that he was grappled by PO3 Danilo and
PO3 Ronald when PO3 Selvi took the shot suddenly, without any due warning from the
latter. Second, in the case of People vs Tamani, the Supreme Court held that, The act
of shooting the victim at a distance, without the least expectation on his part that he
would be assaulted characterizes treachery. PO3 Selvi, who was positioned away from
Jose, drew his gun, but inattentively shoots the victim two feet away. The act of the
former, pulling off his gun from its sheath, constitutes motive to harm the deceased.
Moreover, the United Nations, under Section 4 of the Prevention of Crime and
the Treatment of Offenders, provides that:
Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty shall, as far as possible,
apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They
may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any
promise of achieving the intended result.

Furthermore, Section 5 (c) of the above-mentioned statute provides that:

Whenever a lawful use of force and firearm is unavoidable, law enforcement
official shall: (c) Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any
injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment.
Provided, further, under Rule 8 of the Philippine National Police Manual:
A police officer must first issue a warning shot before he could use force against
an offender.
PO3 Selvi, who alighted from the back seat of the vehicle used to apprehend
Jose, drew his gun and moved to the back of the vehicle, could have assisted his team
by simultaneously grabbing Jose from the back, while PO3 Danilo and PO3 Ronald
were beside the victim. They could have disarmed and pacified Jose through
collaborative strength, without the use of inflictive force.
Also, PO3 Selvi could have rushed Jose to the nearby Baguio General Hospital
which was actually 10 meters away from the scene of the incident or better yet, to
compensate for the absence of a vehicle that would bring them to the hospital, he or
any of his team could have rushed and asked for medical assistance from said hospital.
Correspondingly, from the moment of PO3 Danilo, PO3 Ronald and Joses commotion,
PO3 Selvi could have fired a warning shot to prevent serious physical damage to his
team, any innocent civilians, if present, and to Jose. Such warning shot is necessary to
identify himself and to give the offender, Jose, opportunity to surrender peacefully.
Section 2 of the aforesaid Manual states that:
During an armed confrontation, only those necessary and reasonable forces
should be applied as would be sufficient to overcome resistance which was put up by
the offender, subdue the clear and imminent danger posed by law.
Such reasonableness of the force employed depends upon the number of
aggressors, nature and characteristics of weapon used, physical condition such as the
physical size of the persons involved, and other circumstances including the place and
occasion of the assault.
Jose was being grappled by PO3 Ronald and PO3 Danilo, making him incapable
of moving. Worse, he was inaccurately shot by PO3 Selvi given the fact that law
enforcement were trained, disciplined and taught adept knowledge in the use of
firearms within reasonable circumstances. The means employed by PO3 Selvi was

grave and was committed when his team failed to pacify the former using a drastic
method considering that Jose was intoxicated and therefore, light-headed, far from
sensible conduct. Which, whoever would sustain such method would be aggravated and
will hassle up, Jose was however, unlucky as he was shot by the respondent.
In the case of Lacanilao vs CA, it was held that While appellant, a law enforcer,
is to be commended for responding to the call of duty when he tried to stop the victim
and the latter's companions from their drunken and disorderly conduct, nevertheless he
cannot be exonerated from overdoing his fulfillment of duty to the extent of admittedly
shooting and thereby killing said victim.
PRAYER
Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that after notice and
hearing, the respondent be indicted for Murder with treachery or alevosia, penalized
under Article 248 paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, and award the heirs of the late Jose by condemning the defendant
to pay to the plaintiff the following:
Attorneys fees:

P40,000 and appearance fees of P 2,000 per hearing; Cost of

litigation: P10,000; Civil indemnity:

P50,000; Exemplary damages, if a crime is

committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, under article

2230 of the Civil Code; Moral Damages: and P50,000 in view of the death of the victim
and resultant grief to the family of the victim.
Plaintiff further prays for such other relief under the premises and in the sound
discretion of the Honorable Court.

Nadine Malaya Nadiasan

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Roll No. 45454 05-19-88
PTR No. 2652658 01-01-10 S.C
IBP No. 88888

02-01-10 S.C

8F Porta Vaga, Session Road,

Baguio City
Cell No. 0947-318-3337
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, this 30th of September 2015 at Baguio City,
Philippines. Complainant personally appeared to me and known by me to be the same

person who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that the same
is here free act and voluntary deed.