PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellee vs. DANIEL PINTO, JR. and NARCISO BUENAFLOR, JR., defendants-appellants.

ERROR IN PERSONAE: Mistake in identity of victims.—The fact that the victims were different from the ones the appellants intended to injure cannot save them from conviction. Aberratio ictus or mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim. The main reason behind this conclusion is the fact that the accused had acted with such a disregard for the life of the victim(s)—without checking carefully the latter’s identity—as to place himself on the same legal plane as one who kills another willfully, unlawfully and feloniously. Neither may the fact that the accused made a mistake in killing one man instead of another be considered a mitigating circumstance.

FACTS:

1. A police operation to serve a search warrant in the premises of Francisco Bello thru policemen Daniel Pinto, Jr. and Narciso Buenaflor,Jr for alleged position of rifle and submachine gun. On the night of the execution to serve the warrant a shooting incident happened.

2. One vehicle which carry members of Tiongson family, driver and a priest was fired by the operatives. Richard Tiongson died the following day while Maria Theresa was fatally wounded. Despite the incident, the police operative pursued its mission to haunt for Francisco Bello.

3. When they reached the residence of Bello’s parents they found out different types of firearms. Thereafter, the Chief of Police, declared the search terminated and the entire searching party left for the headquarters.

4. Bello and his party arrived in Daraga, Albay and stayed in the house of Inocencia Malbas.

5. Early in the morning successive burst of gunfire were heard, Bello, who was in the balcony was gradually fall down, with his hands above his head. He died due to multiple gunshot wounds. Rosalio Andes was also shot and was killed allegedly fought back with authorities. He died due to multiple gunshot wounds.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the killings (Tiongson, Bello and Andes) and frustrated murder (Maria Theresa Tiongson) were perpetrated in the course of the performance of their official duties as peace officers in obedience to the lawful order of their superiors?

RULING:

1.   Admittedly, the appellants and the rest of the police force involved, originally set out to perform a legal duty: the service of a search warrant on Bello. In the process, however, appellants abused their authority resulting in unauthorized and unlawful moves and consequences. Armed with only a search warrant and the oral order to apprehend Bello, they went beyond the ambit of their mission and deprived Bello and two other persons of their lives.

 

2.   A propensity for rash judgment was likewise amply shown at the incident involving the Tiongson children. Since the jeep coming towards them was owned by the Anduizas, the appellants acted obviously in the belief that Bello was its passenger and they fired upon it even without any inquiry as to the identity of its passengers. Granting that the police indeed fired a warning shot, sound discretion and restraint dictated that, there being no responding shots from its passengers after the alleged warning shot and considering the condition of the road which was not only muddy but uphill, instead of directing aimless gunburst at the jeep, the most that they could have done was to render the jeep immobile by shooting its tires. That way, they could have verified the identity of the passengers. As it were, they riddled the jeep with bullets injuring in the process innocent passengers who were completely unaware of what they were up against.

 

DECISION:

The decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed subject to the modifications that appellants shall solidarily be liable for the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000) for each of the three murders they committed and, for the frustrated murder of Maria Theresa Tiongson, each of them shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of from six (6) years of prision correccional maximum as minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum as maximum.

 

Inasmuch as appellant Daniel Pinto, Jr. had been a police officer for only five months when the crimes were committed, SC asked the Office of the President for whatever action may be proper to temper his penalty.