People vs.

Lagata if he wanted to be exempt from any

[Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or
office/Requisites]
Requisites:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a
duty or in a lawful exercise of a right or office;
and
2. That the injury caused or those offense committed
be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office.
responsibility.
5. Even if appellant sincerely believe, although
erroneously that in firing the shots be acted in the
performance of his official duty the
circumstances of the case show that there was no
necessity for him to fire directly against the
prisoners so as seriously wound one of them and
kill instantaneously another.
6. While custodians of prisoners should necessity
would authorize them to fire against them.

PROSECUTION:

1. LAGATA was a provincial guard;

2. Six prisoners were then assigned to work in the
capitol plaza;
3. A certain Epifanio Labong went missing after the
latter instructed the prisoners to go to the nursery
and pick up gabi.
4. LAGATA ordered the five prisoners to look for
Labong.
5. They went looking for Labong. Upon reaching a
camote plantation they saw footprints.
6. While in the camote plantation, 3 shots were
fired, one of which hit Eusebio Abria (prisoner).
7. Mariano Ibañez (prisoner), said that Abria went
to the camote plantation and found footprints and
called Lagata to inform him.
8. When Abria told Lagata about a flattened grass
and that he failed to look for Labong, LAGATA
fired at him on his left arm.
9. When they were called to assemble, LAGATA
shot Tipace (prisoner). While Ibañez (prisoner)
ran away when he saw that Tipace was shot by
LAGATA.

DEFENSE:
1. That he fired his gun because the prisoners were
running away and when he told them to stop they
refused to do so.
2. That picking of gabi was not part of the prisoner’s
work.

ISSUE: W/N LAGATA justified (Article 11, Par. 5 –

Fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of right or office)

SC: ACQUITTED

1. It is clear that Lagata had absolutely no reason to

fire at Tipace.
2. Lagata could have fired at him in self-defense or
if absolutely necessary to avoid his escape.
3. The record does not show that Tipace was bent on
committing any act of aggression "he was running
towards and then around me". (Emphasis ours)
How could anyone in his senses imagine that
Tipace intended to escape by running towards and
around the very guard he was supposed to escape
from?
4. There is no question that the escape of Labong
scared appellant according to him because of the
experience of other guard who were dismissed
from office or even prosecuted because of
prisoners who had escaped under their custody
and that it was his duty to fire against the prisoner