PEOPLE V.

PATROLMAN DOMINGO BELBES

Case Digest
FACTS (SUMMARIZED VERSION):
Patrolman Domingo Belbes was assigned to maintain peace and order at the prom night of Pili Barangay High School.
During the event, he responded to a report by two female students that someone was making trouble at one of the schools
temporary building. He and Patrolman Jose Pabon found Fernando Bataller, drunk, with his two companions, and it
appeared that Fernando was breaking the bamboo walls of the temporary building. Belbes, armed with an armalite, fired
at Bataller, who was hit at several different parts of his body, and died. Whether or not there was a confrontation is
disputed (appellee says there was none, appellant (Belbes) says there was).
Trial court held Belbes guilty for murder. In his appeal, Belbes said he fired the shots at Bataller out of self-defense and
that he was performing his official functions when he did so.
FACTS (DETAILED VERSION):
APPELLEEs VERSION:

On the evening of February 16, 1990, Patrolan Domingo Belbes (appellant) and Pat. Jose Pabon were assigned
to maintain peace and order at the Junior and Senior Prom of Pili Barangay High School, Pili, Bacacay, Albay.
9:00 PM: Two female students approached Teacher-in-charge Mila Ulanca and said that somebody was making
trouble. Belbes (armed with an armalite rifle), and Pabon (armed with a .38 caliber revolver) responded to the
scene.
Meanwhile, Fernando Bataller, who was drunk, was with his cousin Carlito Bataller, and friend Rosalio Belista.
While vomiting and holding on to the bamboo wall of the schools temporary building, the bamboo splits broke.
The policemen then arrived.
Moments (six seconds according to Mrs. Mila Ulanca) after, bursts of gunfire Rat-tat-tat-tat-tat were heard.
Without warning, Belbes had fired his gun at Fernando Bataller, who was hit on different parts of the body and
died.

APPELLANTs (BELBESs) VERSION:

He and Pabon found Fernando Bataller making trouble and destroying the wall of the temporary building.
Fernando was drunk or a little tipsy, and was not vomiting.
The two approached Fernando and identified themselves as policemen, but the former ignored them. Pabon was in
front of Fernando (one meter away from each other). Fernando lunged with a knife at Pabon, but the latter
avoided it.
Fernando then stabbed Belbes, hitting the latters left shoulder.
Belbes filed a warning shot. Fernandos companions (Carlito and Rosalio) became aggressive. Fernando grabbed
the armalite.
While Belbes and Fernando were struggling, the gun went off once, hitting Fernando. He cannot recall how many
more shots were fired after the gun was semi-automatic.

TRIAL COURT: Found Belbes GUILTY of MURDER and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
APPEAL: Belbes admits to firing the gunshots that killed Bataller. But he claims that he did so in self-defense, and that
that he was only performing his official functions when he responded in the course of police duties to the information
that somebody was making trouble and disturbing the peace.

ISSUE/HELD:
WON the Trial Court was correct in holding the accused guilty for murder. NO

RATIO:
Appellant offers no material evidence to sufficiently support his claim of self-defense on the face of mortal danger while
on police duty. Where the accused admits to killing the victim in self defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him.
However, the evidence reveals an incomplete justifying circumstance defined in Article 11, paragraph number 5 of the
Revised Penal Code. For a person not to incur criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty, 2 requisites must
concur: (1) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty; (2) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary
consequence of the due performance of such right or office.
Although Belbes did act in the performance of his duty (first requisite), the second requisite is lacking, for the killing need
not be a necessary consequence of the performance of his duty.

CONCLUSION:
Trial court decision MODIFIED. Appellant is guilty only of homicide, mitigated by the incomplete justifying
circumstance of fulfillment of duty. Sentence: indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years of prision mayor minimum, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal minimum, as maximum.
EFFECT OF JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE:
Penalty of homicide if reclusion temporal. But with one mitigating circumstance, maximum of penalty should be RT in its
minimum period, and minimum of penalty should be from prision mayor.