Post

Galang v. People

Posted
By Anonymous
4 min read
Galang v. People

Case Title and Citation

P/INSP. ROQUE G. GALANG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
G.R. No. 128536, January 31, 2000
Supreme Court - First Division
Ponente: Justice Pardo

Facts

  • On November 26, 1992, in Alcantara, Romblon, a provincial festivity was ongoing and Carlos Oro celebrated his birthday by drinking.
  • At around 7:00 p.m., Carlos had an altercation with Jojo Marcelo; later, he had another altercation with Dennis Lota. Reports reached Roque Galang, a police inspector, who with Adreo Galin and CAFGU members proceeded to the scene.
  • Upon seeing Carlos, Galang drew his gun and identified himself, telling Carlos to drop his weapon. Carlos raised his hands and stated he would not fight back.
  • Galang then seized Carlos’s right arm and forced him to kneel with his back still restrained; in that position, Galang fired two bullets into Carlos, who slumped to the ground. Carlos died on arrival at the hospital.
  • A trial court convicted Galang of homicide, rejecting his claim of self-defense, and sentenced him to eight years and one day to fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, with damages of P30,000 to the heirs and costs.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification. It found that Galang did not prove self-defense but allowed a privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty.
  • The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ modification, found Galang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide, and imposed the indeterminate sentence of eight years and one day to fourteen years eight months and one day, plus damages of P50,000, with no costs.

Issues

  1. Does the evidence establish beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner is guilty of homicide?
  2. Did the Court of Appeals properly appreciate and apply the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty?

Ruling

  1. No — The evidence does not support a finding of self-defense; the victim was disarmed and kneeling, and the threat to the petitioner’s life ceased, negating the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
  2. No — The privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty cannot be applied given the police officer’s position and the manner in which the shooting occurred, after the victim was disarmed and kneeling.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • Self-defense requires concurrent elements: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity to repel, and lack of provocation by the defender. The Court found the trajectory downward and the kneeling, disarmed status of Carlos negated ongoing unlawful aggression, thereby undermining complete or incomplete self-defense.
  • Even accepting a prior invocation of unlawful aggression, the subsequent act occurred when the victim was disarmed and submitting, removing the justification for deadly force. The rule is that unlawful aggression is a sine qua non for justifying force in self-defense.
  • Peace officers bear a special duty to protect life, and the privilege of performing one’s duties does not authorize lethal force when the victim is already disarmed and begging for life. The Court cited established jurisprudence (e.g., People v. Cawaling; People v. Bitoon; People v. Alconga; People v. Cario) and the treatise statement by Chief Justice Aquino on the handling of force in arrest scenarios.
  • As the Court found the victim disarmed and kneeling when shot, the court could not uphold the privilege of performing one’s duty as a mitigating factor in this instance.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Unlawful aggression is a necessary condition for self-defense (complete or incomplete).
  • When the accused admits killing but asserts self-defense, the defense must be proven by clear and convincing evidence to exclude any vestige of criminal aggression.
  • A peace officer may not justify deadly force when the victim has been disarmed and is in a compliant position (kneeling), particularly when the officer’s actions constitute wanton violence.
  • Privileged mitigating circumstances tied to the performance of duty are not automatic equities for police officers where the force used is disproportionate to the threat.
  • Indeterminate Sentence Law provides the framework for sentencing in offenses like homicide where aggravating and mitigating circumstances are weighed.

Disposition

  • The petition is denied. The Court set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision and found the accused, Roque G. Galang, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, with neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
  • Sentence: eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum; indemnity to the heirs of Carlos Oro in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00); costs. No additional costs.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • None noted. The decision states the Justices concur; no separate concurring or dissenting opinions are indicated.

Significance / Notes

  • Clarifies that self-defense must be proven by clear and convincing evidence when the accused admits killing the victim.
  • Reaffirms that the privilege of performing one’s official duties does not justify deadly force when the at-issue victim is disarmed and in a submissive posture.
  • Emphasizes heightened scrutiny of police use of force, reinforcing the expectation of restraint and adherence to due process in arrest scenarios.
  • Reinforces the handling of homicide cases under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, balancing the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.