Fulfillment of Duty/Lawful Exercise of Right

Facts:

Policeman (PO2) Rufino Mamangun was responding to a robbery-holdup call, with his
fellow police officers, at Brgy. Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan. Mamangun, with PO2
Diaz and Cruz, each armed with a drawn handgun, searched the rooftop and saw a man
who they thought was the robbery suspect. Mamangun, who was ahead of the group,
fired his gun once and hit the man, who turned out to be Gener Contreras (not the
suspect) � Contreras died of the gunshot wound.

According to the lone witness Crisanto Ayson, he accompanied the policemen to the
lighted rooftop. He was beside Mamangun when he (Ayson) recognized the deceased.
According to Ayson, Mamangun pointed his gun at the man, who instantly exclaimed
�Hindi ako, hindi ako!� to which Mamangun replied, �Anong hindi ako?� and shot him.

The defense rejects this testimony, alleging that they were the only ones at the
dark rooftop when Mamangun noticed a crouching man who suddenly continued to run.
Mamangun shouted �Pulis, tigil!� whereupon the person stopped and raised a steel
pipe towards Mamangun�s head. This prompted Mamangun to shoot the person. The three
police claim that Contreras only said �Hindi ako, hindi ako� only when they
approached him. Mamangun then asked �Why did you go to the rooftop? You know there
are policemen here.� Mamangun reported the incident to the desk officer who
directed investigator Hernando Banez to investigate the incident. Banez later on
fou nd a steel pipe on the roof.

Issue:

W/N the death of the victim was the necessary consequence of the petitioner�s
fulfillment of his duty

Held:

No. The Court denies the instant petition and affirms Sandiganbayan�s decision
after finding the petitioner�s testimony to be nothing but a concocted story
designed to evade criminal liability. Per Sandiganbayan�s observations, the defense
was self-serving for the accused and biased with respect to his co-policemen-
witnesses.

Additionally, petitioner�s pretense that Contreras struck him was not initially
reported to the desk and was only conveniently remembered when the investigator
found a pipe in the crime scene.

Acts in the fulfillment of duty and self-defense does not completely justify the
petitioner�s firing the fatal gunshot. The element of unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim was absent, which leads to the failure of the petitioner�s plea.
Also, there can only be incomplete justification (a privileged mitigating
circumstance) in the absence of a necessary justifying circumstance the injury was
caused by necessary consequence of due performance of duty.