YAPYUCO vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE Cited in the case of Yapyuco vs Sandiganbayan and people, are criminal cases of United States
June 25, 2012 | Peralta, J. | Art. 11 Justifying Circumstances vs. Ah Chong and People vs. Antonio Z. Oanis and Alberto Galanta.
PETITIONERS: In the Ah Chong case cited by accused-appellants, the instances of that case were that the
SALVADOR YAPYUCO y ENRIQUEZ defendant therein acted in self-defense only because he had no opportunity to make a further
MARIO D. REYES, ANDRES S. REYES and VIRGILIO A. MANGUERRA inquiry, had no alternative but to take the facts as they appeared before him and to act in order to
GERVACIO B. CUNANAN, JR. and ERNESTO PUNO protect his life, his property, and the property charged to him
RESPONDENTS: The leading authority in the mistake of fact as grounds for non-liability is found in United States
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Ah Chong.
SUMMARY: In the case of People vs. Oanis, on the other hand, the court finds that the accused-appellants did
This case revolves around the issue of whether Yapcuco, Cunanan, Puno, Reyes, Reyes, and not act in negligence of facts but acted brashly, leading to the death of Tecson. The court further
Manguerra, the accused, had acted in the regular and lawful performance of their duties in the ruled that the lower court erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty of homicide through
maintenance of peace and order or whether they had deliberately ambushed the victims with reckless imprudence. The accused-appellants were found guilty of murder.
the malice and criminal intent of killing them, and should be liable in Criminal Case Nos.
16612, 16613, and 16614 – cases of murder, multiple attempted murder, and frustrated murder, Requisites for justification, under Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code, or one who acts in
respectively. the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office does not incur any criminal
liability, do not obtain in the case of Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan and People.
Whether Yapcuco et al. had acted in the regular and lawful performance of their duties in Theirs, therefore, is the specific duty to identify the occupants of their suspect vehicle and search
the maintenance of peace and order either as barangay officials and as members of the for firearms inside it to validate the information they had received; they may even effect a
police and the CHDF, and hence, could take shelter in the justifying circumstance bloodless arrest should they find cause to believe that their suspects had just committed, were
provided in Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code; or whether they had deliberately committing or were bound to commit a crime.
ambushed the victims with the intent of killing them.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The joint decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal
DOCTRINE: Case Nos. 16612, 16613, and 16614, dated June 27, 1995, are hereby AFFIRMED.
No. The court finds that the accused petitioners did not act in negligence of facts but acted
brashly, leading to the death of Licup and injured Villanueva. The court further ruled that the
lower court erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty of homicide through reckless FACT/S:
imprudence. The accused-appellants were found guilty of murder, suffering a sentence of from 1. The accused-petitioners Yapyuco, Cunanan and Puno who members of the Integrated
five (5) years of prision correctional to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal. National Police; Reyes and Pamintuan who were barangay captains; Manguerra,
APPLICATION:
Lacson, Pabalan who were either members of the Civil Home Defense Force or
civilian volunteers of Quiebawan and Del Carmen alleged that they all received
information concerning a reported presence of armed NPA in Quiebawan;
YAPYUCO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE | Manalese, L.M.
2. On that night of the incident, the victims had just attended a barrio fiesta celebration. To secure and detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him
On the way back, suddenly, as they were approaching a curve on the road, they met a if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm, an officer is justified in using reasonable
burst of gunfire and instantly the victims were all wounded and bleeding profusely, force when making a lawful arrest.
and thereafter pronounced dead. Thus, all the accused were charged with murder,
However, the officer is never justified in using excessive force, treating the offender with
multiple attempted murder and frustrated murder;
wanton violence, or using dangerous methods when the arrest could be made.
3. On the other hand, the petitioner-accused contends that they flagged the jeepney that
the victims boaded and signaled for it to stop. He claimed that instead of stopping, Notoriety provides a justification for increased government vigilance and alertness, but it never
the jeepney accelerated and swerved to its left. This allegedly inspired him, and his justifies hasty action that puts lives at risk.
fellow police officers Cunanan and Puno, to fire warning shots but the jeepney
continued pacing forward, hence they were impelled to fire at the at the tires thereof
and instantaneously, gunshots allegedly came bursting from the direction of Narons
house directly at the subject jeepney.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the concept of Mistake of Fact is applicable to the case of Yapyuco et
al. before the court, as justifying circumstance provided in Article 11 (5) of the
Revised Penal Code in the regular and lawful performance of their duties in the
maintenance of peace and order either as barangay officials and as members of the
police and the CHDF.
RELEVANT LAWS APPLICABLE:
1. Article 11 (5). Justifying Circumstances of the Revised Penal Code - Any Person who
acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office does not
HELD:
No. Requisites for justification under Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code, or one who acts
in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office does not incur any
criminal liability, do not obtain in the case of Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan and People.
The crime committed by petitioners is not merely criminal negligence, the killing being
intentional and not accidental.
YAPYUCO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE | Manalese, L.M.
