PEOPLE v APOLINAR

FACTS

One midnight, Apolinar was looking over a parcel of land owned by Gonzales in Pangasinan when he
observed that there was a man carrying a bundle on his shoulder. Believing that he was a thief, the
accused called his attention but he ignored him. The defendant fired in the air and then at the person he
saw, using his shotgun. The man whom the accused shot was Domingo Petras, and he has been
wounded in the back. Petras died of the wounds he sustained. The accused surrendered to the
authorities immediately after the incident.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused can invoke defense against property

HELD

No. The right to property is not of such importance as right to life, and defense of property can be invoked
as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with
said property.

____________________________________________________________________________________

PEOPLE v ULEP

The help of SP01 Ulep and his other companions were sought when Buenaventura Wapili started to get
wild from his house going outside with no particular direction. The accused said that the Wapili was
carrying with him a bolo and rattan stool.

The accused fired a warning shot to put down Wapili’s weapons. However, the victim continued advancing
towards the accused and thus, Ulep fired at Wapili. When the victim was slumped to the ground, the
accused came closer and shot another bullet into Wapili’s head.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused should be acquitted on the ground that the killing was in the course of the
performance of his official duty as a police officer

HELD

No. The fatal wound in the victim’s head was not a necessary consequence of accused’s due
performance of a duty or the lawful exercise of a right or office. Two requisites must be proved before the
justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty may be invoked, namely: 1) that he acted in the
performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or an office, and 2) 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 case at bar.

PEOPLE v OANIS
FACTS

Anselmo Balagtas is an escaped convict and there was an order to get him dead or alive. Antonio Oanis
and Alberto Galanta were instructed to arrest Balagtas. They went to the suspected house then where
they would find the supposedly Balagtas. They went to the room of Irene, and an seeing a man sleeping
with his back towards the door where they were, simultaneously or successively fired at him which
resulted to the victim’s death. The supposedly Balagtas turned out to be Serepio Tecson, an innocent
man.

ISSUE

Whether or not Oanis and Galanta incur no criminal liability on the ground that they were in the official
performance of their duties

HELD

No. Under Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code, two requisites must be present to invoke such
justifying circumstance. In the case at bar, only the first requisite is present — appellants have acted in
the performance of a duty. The second requisite is wanting for the crime by them committed is not the
necessary consequence of a due performance of their duty. They had ample time and opportunity to
ascertain the identity of the person who was in the room and asleep.