People v. Campo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the night of April 5, 1906, members of the municipal police, including the accused Daniel Campo, were patrolling. They observed a group of individuals playing cards. Upon being ordered to halt, all but one fled. The accused pursued the fleeing individuals. At a distance of about 10 brazas, the accused fired his revolver twice without effect. Upon closing the distance to about 2 brazas, he fired again, hitting the fugitive, Julian Lavandero, in the right arm and fracturing it. As Lavandero fell face downwards, the accused, despite Corporal Nadela's order to stop firing, fired again at close range into the deceased's back, causing a fatal wound. Procedural History: A complaint for homicide was filed against Daniel Campo. The trial court sentenced the accused to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs, and to pay costs. The accused appealed this judgment. The Petition: The accused appealed the judgment of the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused, Daniel Campo, committed the crime of homicide. Whether the accused acted in the lawful exercise of his duty or right when he fired upon the deceased. Whether the accused's actions were justified by the deceased's alleged resistance and aggression.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, sentencing the accused to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, with accessory penalties, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, plus costs. The Court held that the accused committed the crime of homicide willfully and feloniously.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the accused committed homicide: The facts established that the accused, Daniel Campo, fired multiple shots at Julian Lavandero, who was fleeing and unarmed. The first shots wounded Lavandero in the arm, causing him to fall. Despite orders to cease firing and the victim being on the ground, the accused fired again at close range into the deceased's back, resulting in instant death. The Court found that these actions constituted the crime of homicide as defined and punished under Article 404 of the Penal Code, as no qualifying circumstances for a graver crime were present. On whether the accused acted in the lawful exercise of his duty or right: The Court ruled that the accused could not allege that he acted in compliance with a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right. He was not authorized to shoot an individual who was fleeing and offering no resistance. The exercise of public authority does not warrant the use of force except in extreme cases where one is attacked and finds no other means to comply with duty and cause himself to be respected and obeyed. The actions of the accused, firing repeatedly at an unarmed fleeing man who had fallen, exceeded any lawful exercise of authority. On whether the accused's actions were justified by the deceased's alleged resistance and aggression: The Court found no evidence to support the accused's claim that the deceased offered resistance or attacked him with a sickle. The record showed that the sickle belonged to another person and was not in the possession of the deceased at the time. Furthermore, the accused continued firing despite orders from his corporal to stop, and the fleeing individuals, including the deceased, offered no resistance. The accused's claim of self-defense or lawful apprehension was therefore unsubstantiated.
Main Doctrine
The use of force by a public officer in apprehending a fleeing individual is only justified in extreme cases where one is attacked and finds no other means to comply with duty and cause himself to be respected and obeyed. Firing upon an unarmed individual offering no resistance, even if fleeing, constitutes homicide.