Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 176 views

    Cabanlig vs. People

    Uploaded by

    Jericho Jacalne
    SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig was charged with murder for shooting Jimmy Valino, a detained prisoner, while transporting him. Cabanlig argued he shot Valino in self-defense and in fulfillment of his duty as a police officer. The Supreme Court ultimately acquitted Cabanlig, ruling that: 1) the killing was justified as done in fulfillment of Cabanlig's duty to protect himself from harm, and 2) Cabanlig did not exceed his duties by immediately shooting without warning, as the threat to his life was imminent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cabanlig vs. People

    Uploaded by

    Jericho Jacalne
    176 views4 pages
    SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig was charged with murder for shooting Jimmy Valino, a detained prisoner, while transporting him. Cabanlig argued he shot Valino in self-defense and in fulfillment of his duty as a police officer. The Supreme Court ultimately acquitted Cabanlig, ruling that: 1) the killing was justified as done in fulfillment of Cabanlig's duty to protect himself from harm, and 2) Cabanlig did not exceed his duties by immediately shooting without warning, as the threat to his life was imminent.

    Original Description:

    Yeah yeah yeah

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig was charged with murder for shooting Jimmy Valino, a detained prisoner, while transporting him. Cabanlig argued he shot Valino in self-defense and in fulfillment of his duty as a police officer. The Supreme Court ultimately acquitted Cabanlig, ruling that: 1) the killing was justified as done in fulfillment of Cabanlig's duty to protect himself from harm, and 2) Cabanlig did not exceed his duties by immediately shooting without warning, as the threat to his life was imminent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    176 views4 pages

    Cabanlig vs. People

    Uploaded by

    Jericho Jacalne
    SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig was charged with murder for shooting Jimmy Valino, a detained prisoner, while transporting him. Cabanlig argued he shot Valino in self-defense and in fulfillment of his duty as a police officer. The Supreme Court ultimately acquitted Cabanlig, ruling that: 1) the killing was justified as done in fulfillment of Cabanlig's duty to protect himself from harm, and 2) Cabanlig did not exceed his duties by immediately shooting without warning, as the threat to his life was imminent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    CASE DIGEST: FULFILLMENT OF DUTY

    SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan and


    Office of the Special Prosecutor (G.R. No/
    148431, July 28, 2005)
    Facts:
    Police officers CABANLIG, PADILLA, ABESAMIS,
    MERCADO and ESTEBAN were all charged for
    the MURDER of Jimmy Valino before the
    Sandiganbayan. Jimmy Valino was a detained
    prisoner who was escorted to retrieve the effects
    of the crime to the place where he hid the same.
    Aboard the police vehicle, Jimmy Valino suddenly
    grabbed the M16 rifle and about to jump out of the
    jeep. CABANLIG shouted “hoy!”and without
    issuing any warning of any sort, CABANLIG fired
    at Valino, hitting his head, left side of the chest
    and left lower back.
    CABANLIG admitted shooting Valino during the
    trial. However, Cabanlig justified the shooting as
    an act of self-defense and performance of duty.
    Nevertheless, Sandiganbayan CONVICTED
    CABANLIG but acquitted his 4 companions.
    Upon appeal, the SUPREME COURT eventually
    ACQUITTED CABANLIG
    RULING 1: Because the killing was justified and
    that the same was done in the fulfillment of duty
    A policeman in the performance of duty is
    JUSTIFIED in using such force as is reasonably
    (and absolutely)necessary to (1) secure and
    detain the offender, (2) overcome his resistance,
    (3) prevent his escape, (4) recapture him if he
    escapes, and (4) protect himself from bodily harm.
    (People v. Oanis, 74 Phil 257 [1943]; People v.
    Lagata (83 Phil 150 [1949]).
    Unlike in self-defense where unlawful aggression
    is an element, in performance of duty, unlawful
    aggression from the victim is NOT a requisite.
    In People v. Delima,(46 Phil 738 [1992]) where
    the killing of a fugitive who lunged at a policeman
    with a bamboo-makeshift lance, the SC ruled that
    the same was done in the fulfillment of duty. The
    fugitive’s unlawful aggression, in that case, had
    already ceased when the policeman killed him,
    however, the policeman's act of shooting at him is
    justified because he was running away from him
    when he was shot. Ordinarily, it may appear that
    the policeman, acting in the fulfillment of duty, is
    the aggressor, but his aggression is NOT
    UNLAWFUL, it being necessary to fulfill his duty.
    But IF the policeman was a PRIVATE PERSON,
    not in the performance of duty, and the same
    situation was given, there would be NO self-
    defense because there would be NO unlawful
    aggression on the part of the deceased.
    RULING 2: Because Cabanlig did not exceed the
    fulfillment of duty when he IMMEDIATELY SHOT
    Valino without issuing a warning.
    The duty to issue a warning is not absolutely
    mandated at all times and at all cost to the
    detriment of the life of law enforcers. The directive
    to issue a warning contemplates a situation where
    several options are still available to the law
    enforcers. In exceptional circumstances where the
    threat to the life of a law enforcer is already
    imminent AND there is NO OTHER option but to
    use force to subdue the offender, the law
    enforcer’s failure to issue a warning is
    EXCUSABLE.
    RULING 3: Was there an OVERKILL?
    There was none.

    You might also like