This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-08-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.[12] | |||||
|
2005-07-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.[12] | |||||
|
2000-06-21 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Thus, appellant's claim of self-defense could not prosper. The evidence on record, however, reveals an incomplete justifying circumstance defined in Article 11, paragraph number 5 of the Revised Penal Code.[13] A person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. But we must stress there are two requisites for this justifying circumstance: (a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right: and (b) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such right or office.[14] In the instant case, only the first requisite is present; admittedly appellant acted in the performance of his duty. However, the second requisite is lacking, for the killing need not be a necessary consequence of the performance of his duty. His duty is to maintain peace and order during the Junior and Senior Prom. But he exceeded such duty, in our view, when he fired his armalite without warning. No doubt, the concept of mitigating circumstances is founded on leniency in favor of an accused who has shown less perversity in the commission of an offense.[15] Though his protestation of innocence is unavailing, his offense could only be characterized as homicide, not murder, as hereafter shown. | |||||