CASE NO. 1: SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig vs.

Sandiganbayan
(Homicide done by a police officer against detained person)
G.R. NO 148431, July 28, 2005
FACTS:

SPO2 Cabanlig, along with other police officers, escorted a detained prisoner named

Jimmy Valino to retrieve the effects of the crime charged to him. Valino was not handcuffed

when they escorted him. While riding the police vehicle going to the said place where the effects

of the crime were hidden, SPO2 Cabanlig saw Valino grabbing an M16 rifle. Without issuing

any warning, SPO2 Cabanlig shot Valino five times. Valino was left dead on the spot. Cabanlig

stated in his defense that his act of shooting was an act of self defense and fulfilment of duty.

However, Sandiganbayan still convicted SPO2 Cabanlig for Homicide.

ISSUE:

1. W/N SPO2 Cabanlig should be guilty of homicide which is considered as a grave misconduct

of a police officer.

RULING:

1. No. The court ruled that “a policeman in the performance of duty is justified in using such

force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome his resistance,

prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm”. The

court likewise ruled that fulfilment of duty and not self-defense is the applicable defense that can

invoked in this case because only the requisites of fulfilment of duty has been complete. The

elements of self-defense are as follows: unlawful aggression; reasonable necessity of the means

employed to prevent or repel it; lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending

himself. On the other hand, the requisites of fulfillment of duty are: the accused acted in the
performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; 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.

Accordingly, the court also stated that by grabbing an M16 rifle, which is a formidable

firearm, the victim had placed the lives of the policemen in grave danger.

On the issue of not issuing a warning, the court ruled that 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

and in exceptional circumstances such as this case, 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

enforcers failure to issue a warning is excusable. A warning is issued when policemen have to

identify themselves as such and to give opportunity to an offender to surrender. By grabbing the

M16 rifle of his police escort, surrendering was clearly far from his mind. However, the court

recommended filing an administrative case against the SPO2 Cabanlig and the other police

officers for gross misconduct when they clearly failed to handcuff Valino.

LESSONS:

The following are principles which can be learned from the decision of the Supreme

Court in this case. These are: (1) self defense and fulfilment of duty, though they are somehow

similar, are still two separate defenses that operate on different principles and have distinct

elements that must be completed before considered as an acceptable and complete defense,

wherein in the case presented, fulfilment of duty was shown by SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig when

the following circumstances were fulfilled (a) the accused acted in the performance of a duty or

in the lawful exercise of a right or office, as shown by SPO2 Cabanlig who is only doing his
official duty at that time in guarding and trying to prevent the escape of a detained prisoner by

shooting Jimmy Valino, who is then holding an M16 rifle which is a formidable and dangerous

firearm (b) 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, as shown by the act of SPO2

Cabanlig when he reached his gun and later shot Valino who is holding a very dangerous weapon

that could injure SPO2 Cabanlig and other police officers in the vehicle which could lead to his

escape and the failure of the duty of the police officers to guard him and prevent his escape; (2)

the weapon used by the victim against the accused is also an important and indispensable factor

that should be considered when fulfillemnt of duty by a police officer is used as a defense,

wherein in the case presented the weapon used by Valino is an M16 rifle that is truly a

formidable and dangerous firearm that could inflict immediate injury or even death to an

individual ; (3) that issuing a warning by a police officer is not absolutely mandated at all times

and is only used to give opportunity to an offender to surrender, wherein in the case presented it

was shown that SPO2 Cabanlig did not issue any warning before he shot Valino and that

Valino’s action when he grabbed the M16 rifle already showed that surrendering was clearly far

from his mind, therefore the act of not issuing a warning by SPO2 Cabanlig is lawfully

excusable.

PROBLEM NO. 2

CASE NO. 1: SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan

(Homicide done by a police officer against detained person)
G.R. NO 148431, July 28, 2005
The strengths of the decision in this case are; (1) the court clearly showed the difference

of self-defense and fulfillment of duty as a defense, wherein the decision stated that the elements
of self-defense are as follows: (a) unlawful aggression; (b) reasonable necessity of the means

employed to prevent or repel it; (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person

defending himself, while the requisites of fulfillment of duty are: (a) the accused acted in the

performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office and ; (b) 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, therefore the only defense that is applicable in this case is

the defense of fulfilment of duty because not all of the elements of self defense has been clearly

established and proven in this case by SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig ; (2) the court strictly upheld the

principle and elements of fulfilment of duty before considering it as a complete defense, wherein

the decision of the court presented that fulfilment of duty was shown by SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig

when it ruled that the following circumstances was fulfilled (a) the accused acted in the

performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office and (b) 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, and when the court also ruled the principle that “a

policeman in the performance of duty is justified in using such force as is reasonably necessary

to secure and detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if

he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm”; (3) the court reasonably considered the

weapon used by the victim in construing that the act shooting by the accused is justified wherein

the decision stated that an M16 rifle is formidable weapon that placed the lived of the police

officers in grave danger; (4) the court also upheld the basic principle that issuing a warning by a

police officer is only done to identify themselves and to give the offender an opportunity to

surrender, wherein the decision stated that when Jimmy Valino grabbed the M16 rifle of his

police escort, surrendering was clearly far from his mind, therefore the act of not issuing a
warning by SPO2 Cabanlig is excusable; (5) the court reasonably provided a recommendation to

file an administrative case against the police officers for not handcuffing the Valino who is then

within their custody.

The weaknesses of the decision in this case are; (1) the decision did not fully consider

that Cabanlig was aware when Valino grabbed the M16 rifle, therefore he was prepared to repel

or overcome any threat posed by Valino; (2) the decision did not consider that the act of not

handcuffing Valino may be pre-planned so that the police officers may let Valino grab a gun, and

later shoot him for that particular act; (3) the decision also did not consider that there were other

police officers that could’ve used other physical force to incapacitate Valino from holding the

rifle; (4) the court failed to considered the fact that five policemen were up against a lone

malefactor who was not even shown to be adept in handling an M16 rifle; (5) the decision also

did not consider that Valino was shot more than 2 times which is obviously more than enough to

incapacitate him from firing the M16 rifle; (6) though the decision provided a recommendation

for filing an administrative complaint against the police officers, the decision should’ve

demanded and not merely recommended the said filing of administrative complaint against them.

PROBLEM NO. 3

CASE NO. 1: SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan

(Homicide done by a police officer against detained person)
G.R. NO 148431, July 28, 2005

The administrative reform measures that the Philippine National Police should

implement to address the weaknesses of the decision in this case are: (1) the PNP should conduct

monthly/annual seminars and conferences for police officers whether high ranking or low
ranking to remind them of their usual duties and protocols including on how they should handle

detained persons and how they should defend themselves as well as the lives of the detained

assigned to them; (2) the PNP should not only conduct seminars but also training and tests which

may be in different forms such as physical training, decision making and critical thinking

training/tests so that they could maintain a fit mind and body which is essential in the

performance of their duties; (3) the PNP should also conduct secret investigation against police

officers who violates the usual prescribed conduct of a police officer including on how to

properly administer detained persons under them; (4) in connection with no. 3, the PNP should

evaluate more strict penalties for those who violates the said usual conduct of a police officer; (5)

the PNP together with the National Police Commission should be more observant and strict in

filing administrative cases against police officers who violates the performance of their duties.

PROBLEM 1

CASE NO. 2: Pablo Quion vs. People of the Philippines

(Malversation of public properties by a police officer)
G.R. No. 136462, September 19, 2002
FACTS:

On March 1988, former Station Commander Pablo Quion has been caught in the

possession and personal use of the following firearms: two (2) super caliber .38 pistol and their

magazines, valued at P11, 000. The following weapons have been in the possession of Quion

during his term of office. However, he failed to turn over the said weapons back to the police

station when he left his position. After a couple of months, a complaint was filed to him by the

new Station Commander on the ground of malversation of public property. The Sandiganbayan

has given Quion an opportunity to present the said firearms but he failed to appear and present it
on scheduled dates. Later, the Sandiganbayan convicted him for malversation of public

properties. In his defense, he stated that he cannot be convicted of the said complaint because he

is already not an accountable officer under the Administrative Code and he further provided that

he was denied of due process of law when Sandiganbayan did not consider his reason (recurring

hypertension) on why he failed to appear and present the said weapons to the court.

ISSUE:

1. W/N Quion should be guilty of malversation of public property, which is a grave misconduct

of a police officer.

RULING:

1. Yes. The court ruled that “To be liable for malversation, an accountable officer need not be a

bonded official. The name or relative importance of the office or employment is not the

controlling factor. What is decisive is the nature of the duties that he performs and that as part of,

and by reason of said duties, he receives public money or property which he is bound to

account.”

ART. 217 of the RPC provides: Malversation of public funds or property. - Presumption

of malversation- Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for

public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall

consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public

funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or

malversation of such funds or property. The court also provided the that the elements of

malversation has been completed in this case, wherein these are: (1) that the offender is a public
officer; (2) that he has the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his

office; (3) that the funds or property are public funds or property for which he is accountable; (4)

that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or through abandonment or negligence,

permitted another person to take them. Accordingly, Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code is

designed to protect the government and to penalize erring public officials and conspiring private

individuals responsible for the loss of public funds and property by reason of corrupt motives or

neglect or disregard of duty. Its all-encompassing provision cannot be limited by petitioners

absurd interpretation of the provisions of the Administrative Code restricting the application

thereof only to government funds and to bonded public officials.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the delivery to petitioner of the firearms belonging to

the Government, by reason of his office as Station Commander of Calinog, Iloilo, PC-INP,

necessarily entailed the obligation on his part to safely keep the firearms, use them for the

purposes for which they were entrusted to him, and to return them to the proper authority at the

termination of his tenure as commander, or on demand by the owner, the duty to account for said

firearms.

In the defense of the denial of due process of law, the court ruled that Quion was given

ample opportunity to present evidences and to appear in court but he voluntarily failed to do so.

Quion’s right to due process was far from being violated, considering the said circumstances.

The court convicted Quion and ordered a penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and

one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion

temporal, as maximum, as well as the penalty of perpetual special disqualification; and ordering

him to pay a fine of P11,000.00

LESSONS:

The following are principles which can be learned from the decision of the Supreme

Court in this case. These are: (1) Malversation has different elements which are necessary to

consider it as a completed offense, wherein in the case presented, Malversation was shown by

former Station Commander Pablo Quion when the following circumstances were fulfilled (a) that

the offender is a public officer, as shown by Quion when he was still in his position as a police

Station Commander; (b) that he has the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the

duties of his office, as shown by Quion when he has been in the possession of two (2) super

caliber .38 pistol and their magazines; (c) that the funds or property are public funds or property

for which he is accountable, as shown by Quion when he has been in the possession of the said

two calibre .38 pistol and their magazine which is a public property; (d) that he appropriated,

took, misappropriated or consented or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another

person to take them, as shown by Quion when took and maintained the possession of the said

guns and magazines even though he already left his position as a police officer ; (2) being a

bonded official or current employment to a public office is not necessary to be liable for

malversation of public property, what matters is that a person receives public property and

misappropriated it by corrupt motives or neglect or disregard of duty, wherein in the case

presented it was shown that Quion already left his position as Station Commander, meaning he is

not a bonded official anymore, nevertheless he should still be liable for Malversation of public

property based on the fact that he received the said guns with its magazines and that he had

misappropriated it by corrupt motives when he did not surrender it to the rightful authorities

when he left his office; (3) Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code is an all-encompassing

provision, meaning, it cannot be limited by restricting the application thereof only to government
funds and to bonded public officials, wherein in the case presented it was shown that Quion is

still liable under Article 217, “ Malversation of public funds or property” because even although

he is not a bonded public official anymore, Art 217 shall not be limited for that particular reason

only ; (4) Being a police officer, specially when you have a high ranking position necessarily

entails the obligation to safely keep the firearms, to return them to the proper authority at the

termination of his tenure and other similar duties, wherein in the case presented it was shown

that Quion did no fulfiill his obligation as a police officer when he failed to return the said guns

and magazines to the proper authority when his term of office ended; (5) Invoking the right of

due process of law is not absolute, specially when the accused has already given ample time and

opportunities to present evidence and to appear in court, wherein in the case presented it was

shown that Quion has already given by the court and authorities ample time and opportunity to

present evidences and to appear in court but he voluntarily failed to do so.

PROBLEM 2:
CASE NO. 2: Pablo Quion vs. People of the Philippines
(Malversation of public properties by a police officer)
G.R. No. 136462, September 19, 2002

The strengths of the decision in this case are; (1) the decision properly elaborated the

elements of malversation of public property and other important legal and administrative

principles, wherein the decision stated the principle that “to be liable for malversation, an

accountable officer need not be a bonded official, the name or relative importance of the office

or employment is not the controlling factor, what is decisive is the nature of the duties that he

performs and that as part of, and by reason of said duties, he receives public money or property

which he is bound to account” and the important elements of malversation which are the
following (a) that the offender is a public officer; (b) that he has the custody or control of funds

or property by reason of the duties of his office; (c) that the funds or property are public funds or

property for which he is accountable; (d) that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or

consented or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them, and

that; (2) the court strictly upheld the application of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code

wherein the decision stated that Article 217,“Malversation of public funds or property”, is

designed to protect the government and to penalize erring public officials and conspiring private

individuals responsible for the loss of public funds and property by reason of corrupt motives or

neglect or disregard of duty, and its all-encompassing provision cannot be limited by petitioners

absurd interpretation of the provisions of the Administrative Code restricting the application

thereof only to government funds and to bonded public officials; (3) the decision clearly

provided a reasonable explanation that the current employment of a person to a public office is

not necessary for him to commit malversation of public property, wherein the decision stated that

“the name or relative importance of the office or employment is not the controlling factor and

what is decisive is the nature of the duties that he performs and that as part of, and by reason of

said duties, he receives public money or property which he is bound to account”; (4) the decision

also elaborated that it is an inherent administrative obligation of a police officer wherein the

decision stated that the delivery to petitioner of the firearms belonging to the Government, by

reason of his office as Station Commander of Calinog, Iloilo, PC-INP, necessarily entailed the

obligation on his part to safely keep the firearms, use them for the purposes for which they were

entrusted to him, and to return them to the proper authority at the termination of his tenure as

commander, or on demand by the owner, the duty to account for said firearms; (5) the court

strictly denied the statement of Quion when he said that he was not given due process of law
against the complaint against him, wherein the decision stated that Quion was given ample

opportunity to present evidences and to appear in court but he voluntarily failed to do so,

therefore Quion’s right to due process was far from being violated ; (6) the decision also

provided a reasonable punishment against Quion for malversation of public property, wherein

the court convicted Quion and ordered a penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and

one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion

temporal, as maximum, as well as the penalty of perpetual special disqualification; and ordering

him to pay a fine of P11,000.00

The weaknesses of the decision in this case are; (1) the decision failed to provide

necessary actions against the new Station Commander who took over the position of Quion who

is also reasonably liable for not immediately conducting an inventory of weapons in their police

station and his failure to immediately order that the unreturned weapons of Quion be retrieved;

(2) the decision also failed to consider the lapse of time between the assumption of office of the

new Station Commander and his complaint against Quion, wherein there may have been a secret

agreement between them that Quion may keep the said weapon for a particular condition.

PROBLEM NO. 3?

CASE NO. 1: SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan

(Homicide done by a police officer against detained person)
G.R. NO 148431, July 28, 2005

The administrative reform measures that the Philippine National Police should

implement to address the weaknesses of the decision in this case are: (1) the PNP should conduct
monthly/annual seminars and conferences for police officers whether high ranking or low

ranking to remind them of their usual duties and protocols including on how they should handle

detained persons and how they should defend themselves as well as the lives of the detained

assigned to them; (2) the PNP should not only conduct seminars but also training and tests which

may be in different forms such as physical training, decision making and critical thinking

training/tests so that they could maintain a fit mind and body which is essential in the

performance of their duties; (3) the PNP should also conduct secret investigation against police

officers who violates the usual prescribed conduct of a police officer including on how to

properly administer detained persons under them; (4) in connection with no. 3, the PNP should

evaluate more strict penalties for those who violates the said usual conduct of a police officer; (5)

the PNP together with the National Police Commission should be more observant and strict in

filing administrative cases against police officers who violates the performance of their duties.

CASE NO. 2: Pablo Quion vs. People of the Philippines

(Malversation of public properties by a police officer)
G.R. No. 136462, September 19, 2002

The administrative reform measures that the Philippine National Police should implement

to address the weaknesses of the decision in this case are: (1) the PNP should order that every

police station in the Philippines should strictly conduct monthly inventory of weapons and other

police related properties to prevent such cases of malversation; (2) the PNP should provide more

serious penalties for police officers, especially those who have higher positions, who violates

important duties and protocols of their office; (3) the PNP should provide mandatory seminars

and conferences for every police officer about their duties and responsibilities, including their
duty of returning the weapons entrusted to them when they are relieved from office; (4) the PNP

should provide programs against unlawful agreements and illegal amicable settlements which

will affect the integrity and honor of police officers; (5) the PNP should also provide continuous

training and tests for police officers which may be in different forms such as physical, ethical

and mental training to prevent their commission of unlawful acts such as malversation of public

property; (6) the PNP should conduct secret surveillance and investigations against police

officers who commits unlawful acts in the performance of their duties