Valcorza vs. People of the Philippines

A peace officer who shoots an escaping detainee after the detainee has assaulted him and ignored warning shots may be justified under Article 11, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code when the act is committed in the performance of official duty and is more or less necessary to prevent the prisoner from successfully eluding the officers of the law.

Elias Valcorza was a member of the police force of Maramag, Bukidnon, and Roberto Pimentel was a detention prisoner confined in the municipal jail of Maramag to answer a charge of stealing a chicken. The governing provision was Article 11, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code, which the decision applied to the shooting of an escaping detainee by a peace officer.

Elias Valcorza was a member of the police force of Maramag, Bukidnon. Roberto Pimentel was confined on June 4, 1960 in the municipal jail of Maramag as a detention prisoner to answer a charge of stealing a chicken. At about 1:00 p.m. that day, while Valcorza was the police guard on duty, Pimentel escaped.

The following day, a police patrol team composed of Sgt. Federico Daiton and Patrolmen Melquiades Cañas, Pablo Lubido, and Valcorza went to a place called Poultry Area in barrio Cuya, Maramag, Bukidnon, where Pimentel had been reported hiding, for the purpose of bringing him back to jail. Their efforts to locate and apprehend him were fruitless, so they decided to pass the night in the house of Gavino Tirayosa and return to town the following morning.

At about 5:00 a.m. on June 6, 1960, Sgt. Daiton went down from the house to answer a call of nature. He went to a nearby bridge and squatted thereon to defecate. While in that position, he saw a person approaching slowly and ordered him to halt. The person instead jumped down into the creek spanned by the bridge. Daiton yelled for his companions, saying that the person who jumped into the creek could be their quarry. Patrolmen Cañas, Lubido, and Valcorza rushed out of the house, with Cañas and Valcorza going to the place at the creek where the person had jumped down. Daiton stationed himself near the bridge and Lubido went to the other side of the creek. Valcorza and Cañas followed the course of the creek and, after covering a distance of 100 meters, came across footprints which they examined separately. While they were doing so, Pimentel emerged suddenly from the bushes and lunged at Valcorza, hitting him with a stone at the right cheek and causing him to fall to the ground. While Valcorza was on the ground, Pimentel again struck him with a stone on the right arm. Fearing that Pimentel might grab his service revolver, Valcorza summoned Patrolman Cañas, who dashed towards the place, but Pimentel ran away.

Valcorza regained his composure and immediately chased Pimentel, firing a shot into the air and ordering him to stop. As Pimentel did not heed the order, Valcorza fired four times into the air while pursuing him for a distance of about 100 meters. At that point, fearing that the patrol team might fail in apprehending Pimentel, Valcorza fired a fifth shot at him as he was in an act of again jumping down into another part of the creek and when the distance between the two was only three meters. Patrolman Cañas could not be of much help in the chase because his revolver got entangled with some vines and he dropped it; after recovering his revolver, he joined Valcorza, but Pimentel had already jumped down into the water of the creek. The members of the patrol team went down into the water to locate Pimentel and saw him floating, with a wound on his back. As Pimentel was still alive, he was placed in the police jeep and taken to the poblacion of Maramag for treatment, but he died a few minutes after arrival in the municipal building. The physician who examined the cadaver gave the opinion that the missile from the gun fired against the victim entered at the right side of the back but the slug was lodged inside the body; the gray discoloration at the edge or rim of the wound of entry showed the presence of powder burns which, in the physician's opinion, indicated that the gun was fired at close range. Valcorza surrendered himself and his firearm to the Chief of Police upon arrival in the municipal building of Maramag.

Valcorza sought to justify his firing the shot by stating that he tried to hit Pimentel only at the leg, after the latter had disregarded his several warning shots and orders to stop running away. He claimed that he did so at the spur of the moment, probably because he feared that his patrol team might not succeed in apprehending Pimentel and bringing him back to jail; he also claimed that he fired at Pimentel only when the latter was in the act of jumping down into the creek, which had water 8 feet deep, and that if Pimentel succeeded in crossing the creek the patrol team might not be able to apprehend him. His testimony in open court on October 4, 1962, however, was not consistent with his sworn statement, Exhibit A, given to Constabulary soldiers at 3:15 p.m. on June 6, 1960, and subscribed and sworn to before the Justice of the Peace of Maramag, Bukidnon, on June 7, 1960. In that statement, Valcorza narrated that after Pimentel tried to make another escape and ran away, and after Valcorza fired his revolver four times into the sky to stop him, he "fired him one direct hit shot on his back." The Court of Appeals found the first narration more reliable because it was made when there was yet no time for reflection so as to make his story fit into the facts of the incident; the inconsistency affected his credibility and impaired his defense, showing that there was no reasonable necessity for him to shoot Pimentel at the time the latter was running away with no weapon in his hands which he could use for aggression against Valcorza in case he desired to turn back and face him. The Court of Appeals found these facts, and the Supreme Court deemed them conclusive for the purpose of the appeal.

• Justifying Circumstance of Performance of Official Duty: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that, although he was in the performance of his duty as a peace officer, he was not justified in shooting the deceased because there was no danger to his life or limb; this ruling was beyond the context of Article 11, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code and contrary to People vs. Delima, 46 Phil. 738.
• Trigger-Happy Characterization and Dangerousness of Deceased: Petitioner maintained that the Court of Appeals erred in likening him to a trigger-happy policeman and in holding that the deceased had not been shown to be a dangerous person, contrary to its findings of fact.
• Acquittal under Article 11, Paragraph 5: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in not acquitting him based on the facts in relation to Article 11, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code.

• Justifying Circumstance of Performance of Official Duty: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner, although in the performance of his duty as a peace officer, was not justified in shooting the deceased because there was no danger to his life or limb, contrary to Article 11, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code and People vs. Delima, 46 Phil. 738.
• Trigger-Happy Characterization and Dangerousness of Deceased: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in likening petitioner to a trigger-happy policeman and in holding that the deceased had not been shown to be a dangerous person, contrary to its findings of fact.
• Acquittal under Article 11, Paragraph 5: Whether petitioner should be acquitted based on the facts in relation to Article 11, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code.

• Justifying Circumstance of Performance of Official Duty: Yes. The Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioner not justified; the act was committed in the performance of official duty and was more or less necessary to prevent the escaping prisoner from successfully eluding the officers of the law.
• Trigger-Happy Characterization and Dangerousness of Deceased: Yes. The Court of Appeals erred in likening petitioner to a trigger-happy policeman; petitioner fired five cautionary shots into the air and aimed directly only when he had reason to fear that the detainee would elude him and his companions.
• Acquittal under Article 11, Paragraph 5: Yes. Petitioner is acquitted, the facts showing that the shooting was done in the performance of official duty and was more or less necessary to prevent the escape, in the spirit of People vs. Delima, 46 Phil. 738.

• Justifying Circumstance of Performance of Official Duty: The Court treated the facts found by the Court of Appeals as conclusive. It noted that Pimentel had escaped from detention; when ordered to stop by Sgt. Daiton, whom he must have recognized as a peace officer in pursuit, he ran away and threw himself into a creek; later he suddenly emerged from bushes near Valcorza and a fellow policeman and assaulted Valcorza twice with a stone before running away again. Valcorza fired five cautionary shots into the air and aimed directly only when he had reason to fear that Pimentel would elude him and his companions. These facts and circumstances constrained the Court to hold that the act resulting in Pimentel's death was committed in the performance of official duty and was more or less necessary to prevent the escaping prisoner from successfully eluding the officers of the law. The Court also reasoned that holding Valcorza guilty of homicide could demoralize police officers discharging identical or similar official functions, resulting in half-hearted and dispirited efforts to comply with official duty, to the great detriment of public interest. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in holding him not justified.
• Trigger-Happy Characterization and Dangerousness of Deceased: The Court rejected the Court of Appeals' characterization of Valcorza as a trigger-happy policeman. It found that he did not appear trigger-happy because he fired five cautionary shots into the air and decided to aim directly at the escaping detainee only when he had already reasons to fear that the latter would be able to elude him and his companions. The deceased had also assaulted Valcorza twice with a stone. The Court of Appeals' contrary holding was not supported by the facts.
• Acquittal under Article 11, Paragraph 5: Because the shooting was committed in the performance of official duty and was more or less necessary to prevent the escaping prisoner from successfully eluding the officers of the law, the justifying circumstance under Article 11, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code applied. In the spirit of People vs. Delima, 46 Phil. 738, the decision appealed from was reversed and petitioner was acquitted, with costs de officio.

• Justifying circumstance of performance of official duty under Article 11, paragraph 5, Revised Penal Code — A killing by a peace officer is justified when it is committed in the performance of official duty and is more or less necessary to prevent an escaping prisoner from successfully eluding the officers of the law. The Court applied this to a police officer who pursued an escaped detainee, was assaulted by him with stones, fired five cautionary shots into the air, and aimed directly only when he feared the detainee would escape. The officer was acquitted.
• Non-demoralization of law enforcement — The Court considered that convicting the officer of homicide could demoralize police officers discharging identical or similar official functions, leading to half-hearted and dispirited efforts to comply with official duty, to the great detriment of public interest. This policy consideration supported the acquittal.
• Trigger-happy standard — An officer does not appear trigger-happy where he fires cautionary shots into the air and aims directly at an escaping detainee only when he has reasons to fear that the detainee will elude him and his companions. The Court used this standard to reject the Court of Appeals' characterization of petitioner.

• "These facts and circumstances constrain Us to hold that the act thus performed by petitioner — and which unfortunately resulted in the death of the escaping detainee — was committed in the performance of his official duty and was more or less necessary to prevent the escaping prisoner from successfully eluding the officers of the law." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: the shooting was justified as an act performed in the line of duty and necessary to prevent the escape.
• "To hold him guilty of homicide may have the effect of demoralizing police officers discharging official functions identical or similar to those in the performance of which petitioner was engaged at the time he fired at the deceased Pimentel, with the result that thereafter We would have half-hearted and dispirited efforts on their part to comply with such official duty." — This passage supplies the Court's policy rationale for acquittal: avoiding the demoralization of law enforcement officers.
• "petitioner does not appear to be a trigger-happy policeman as shown by the fact that he had fired five cautionary shots into the air and decided to aim directly at the escaping detainee only when he had already reasons to fear that the latter would be able to elude him and his companions." — This passage defines the Court's trigger-happy standard and explains why the Court of Appeals' characterization was rejected.
• "CONSEQUENTLY, in the spirit of our decision in People vs. Delima, 46 Phil. 738, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and, as a consequence, petitioner is acquitted, with costs de officio." — This is the dispositive portion, showing the reversal and acquittal.

• People vs. Delima, 46 Phil. 738 — The Court relied on this decision "in the spirit" of its ruling, reversing the Court of Appeals and acquitting petitioner. It was also the precedent invoked by petitioner in arguing that the Court of Appeals' ruling was contrary to law.

• Article 11, paragraph 5, Revised Penal Code — Cited as the justifying circumstance for acts done in the performance of official duty. The Court applied it to hold that petitioner's act of shooting the escaping detainee was committed in the performance of official duty and was more or less necessary to prevent the prisoner from successfully eluding the officers of the law.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, and Teehankee, JJ., concurred. Sanchez and Barredo, JJ., took no part.