Mamangun vs People

Facts:
Petitioner was one of the policemen who responded to a robbery hold-up that was in progress in
Bulacan. He was accompanied by PO2 Cruz and PO2 Diaz to the rooftop of the house where the suspect
was allegedly taking refuge. They searched the rooftop and saw a man whom they thought was the
suspect. Petitioner fired his handgun and hit the man. The man turned out to be Gener Contreras who
was not the robbery suspect. Contreras died from the gunshot wound. The Sandiganbayan found
petitioner guilty of the crime homicide. Unable to accept the conviction, the petitioner went to the
Supreme Court alleging that the Sandiganbayan committed reversible error in failing to apply paragraph
5, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, which would absolve him from criminal liability. He alleges that
the shooting was done in performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
Issue: Whether or not Article 11, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code applies to petitioner.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that proof that the shooting and death of Contreras was a necessary
consequence of the due performance of petitioners duty should be provided. Petitioners allegation
that he shot Contreras because the latter tried to strike him with a steel pipe was held to be self-serving
and merely an afterthought. Petitioner did not report the incident to the police investigator when he
reported back to the police station. It was only when a lead pipe was discovered that he conveniently
remembered that Contreras tried to hit him. Such vital information could not have escaped the
petitioners mind. Thus, Article 11, Paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to petitioner.