People vs. De Fernando

A law enforcement agent who, acting under a mistaken but good-faith belief that he is repelling an unlawful aggression, kills a person whom he wrongly perceives to be a threat, is not guilty of murder but of homicide through reckless negligence where he failed to exercise the ordinary diligence reasonably required under the circumstances before resorting to deadly force.

Fernando de Fernando was a municipal policeman in the municipality of Zamboanga. Several Moro prisoners had escaped from the Penal Colony of San Ramon, Zamboanga, causing alarm among residents of the barrio of Municahan, who noticed suspicious-looking persons prowling around the area. The accused was performing his duties as an agent of the law when the events giving rise to the charge occurred.

Fernando de Fernando was a municipal policeman in the municipality of Zamboanga. Before the night of the crime, several Moro prisoners had escaped from the Penal Colony of San Ramon, Zamboanga, and the residents of the barrio of Municahan were alarmed by the presence of three suspicious-looking persons prowling around the place.

On the evening in question, while passing in front of the house of Remigio Delgado, the accused was called by Delgado's daughter Paciencia, who stated that her father wished to see him. Upon entering the house, Remigio Delgado informed the policeman that three unknown and suspicious-looking persons, dressed in blue, were prowling around his house. The accused remained in the house talking with Paciencia Delgado, both seated on a bench near the window.

At about seven o'clock at night, a person dressed in dark clothes appeared in the dark at about four meters from the stairs, calling out "Nong Miong." Neither the accused nor Paciencia Delgado recognized who was calling. The accused inquired what the person wanted, but instead of answering, the man continued advancing with a bolo in hand. Fernando de Fernando drew his revolver and fired a shot into the air. Seeing that the unknown person continued ascending the staircase, he fired at him. The man disappeared and ran to the house of a neighbor, Leon Torres, where, after placing upon a table the bolos he carried, he fell on the floor and expired. Remigio Delgado, who had been in the kitchen and had recognized the voice of the unknown man, ran into the parlor upon hearing the shots, took hold of the accused's arm, and asked why he had fired at Buenventura Paulino. The accused replied only, "Let me go, that is a cross eyed person," and immediately went to the house of the barrio teniente, Santiago Torres, from where he telephoned the chief of police to report what had happened. Examination of the body revealed that a bullet had penetrated the base of the neck on the right side, embedding itself under the skin on the left side.

The unknown man was in fact the nephew of the homeowner, Buenventura Paulino, who had been carrying three bolos tied together — which the accused perceived as a single bolo in the hands of a suspicious intruder. The trial court found the accused guilty of murder and sentenced him to twenty years cadena temporal, P1,000 indemnity, and costs. The accused appealed, assigning as errors the trial court's holding that his acts constituted murder and its failure to acquit him on the ground of exemption from criminal liability.

• Assignment of Error 1 — Qualification of the Crime: The accused argued that the trial court erred in holding that the acts committed by him constituted the crime of murder.
• Assignment of Error 2 — Exemption from Criminal Liability: The accused argued that the trial court erred in not holding that he was exempt from criminal liability and in not acquitting him.

• Qualification of the Crime: Whether the acts committed by the accused constitute the crime of murder.
• Exemption from Criminal Liability: Whether the accused is exempt from criminal liability and should be acquitted.

• Qualification of the Crime: No. The acts did not constitute murder but homicide through reckless negligence, the accused having acted under a good-faith belief that he was performing his duty, but without the ordinary diligence required before resorting to deadly force.
• Exemption from Criminal Liability: No. The accused is not exempt from criminal liability, as he failed to exercise the ordinary diligence that the circumstances demanded, particularly in not inquiring from Paciencia Delgado who the caller was despite indications of familiarity between the caller and the household.

• Qualification of the Crime: The accused, a municipal policeman, had been informed of suspicious prowlers possibly linked to escaped penal colony prisoners. When an unknown man in dark clothes advanced up the stairs with a bolo, ignoring the accused's inquiry, the accused first fired a warning shot and then fired at the man. Under these circumstances, the accused believed he was performing his duty by defending the household against an unexpected attack, and such belief precluded the malicious intent necessary for murder. The act could not constitute murder because the accused genuinely, though mistakenly, thought he was justified. However, the crime was not excused entirely, because the accused failed to exercise the ordinary diligence required under the circumstances. The fact that the caller used the familiar address "Nong Miong" — suggesting the caller was a relative or intimate friend of the homeowner — should have prompted the accused to ask Paciencia Delgado who was calling before taking fatal action. In firing without first exercising reasonable diligence, the accused acted with reckless negligence, bringing his conduct within homicide through reckless negligence under Article 568 in relation to Article 404 of the Penal Code.

• Exemption from Criminal Liability: The accused could not be held guilty as a principal with malicious intent because he believed at the time that he was justified in acting as he did. However, he was not entitled to complete exemption because, at the critical moment when fear and duty competed, he did not take full account of the true situation. The bundle of bolos appeared to him as a single bolo in the hands of a suspicious character, but the familiar form of address used by the caller should have alerted him to the caller's relationship with the household. His failure to make the simple inquiry that ordinary prudence demanded constituted reckless negligence, for which he was criminally responsible. The penalty prescribed by law for homicide through reckless negligence under Article 568, in relation to Article 404 of the Penal Code, is arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional in its minimum degree.

• Mistake of Fact Negating Malicious Intent — Where a person acts under an honest but mistaken belief regarding the facts — such as believing an approaching individual is an intruder rather than a relative of the homeowner — the mistake negates the malicious intent required for murder, reducing the crime to one committed through reckless negligence. The accused's subjective perception of threat, though erroneous, precludes the specific criminal intent necessary for murder, but does not absolve him of liability for failing to exercise ordinary diligence.

• Reckless Negligence in the Use of Deadly Force — A law enforcement agent who resorts to deadly force without first exercising the ordinary diligence that the circumstances reasonably demand — such as inquiring about the identity of an unknown person when available indicators suggest familiarity with the household — is guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. The duty to verify is heightened where, as here, the agent had time and opportunity to make inquiry before firing.

• "In firing the shot, without first exercising reasonable diligence, he acted with reckless negligence." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: the accused's failure to verify the identity of the unknown person before shooting transformed what would otherwise have been a justified act of defense into homicide through reckless negligence.

• "At that psychological moment when the forces of far and the sense of duty were at odds, the accused was not able to take full account of the true situation and the bundle of bolos seemed to him to be only one bolo in the hands of a suspicious character who intended to enter the house." — This passage articulates the Court's understanding of the accused's state of mind, explaining why murder was not the proper qualification while still holding him accountable for negligence.

• Article 568, in relation to Article 404, Penal Code (old) — Defines and penalizes homicide through reckless negligence, prescribing the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum degree to prision correccional in its minimum degree. The Court applied this provision after determining that the accused's conduct lacked the malicious intent required for murder but constituted a failure to exercise ordinary diligence, thereby falling within the scope of reckless negligence resulting in death.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concurred.