RPC Article 11 p 5.
Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office.
Fulfilment of duty
1. People vs. Pajenado, 69 SCRA 172, No. L-26458 January 30, 1976
Facts: In the evening of March 26, 1966, there was a party at the house of Constancio Pajenado in
barrio Dapdap, Las Navas, Samar, to celebrate the betrothal of his daughter to the son of one
Guillermo Quebec. Food and drinks were served to the guests among whom were the municipal
mayor of Las Navas, one Ases Jolejole, barrio captain Teofilo Jorda, barrio policemen Domingo
Pajac and Benito Sacay, the deceased Jorge Tapong, and the five accused. At the height of the
festivities, Mayor Jolejole commented that the deceased Jorge Tapong was already drunk and
should be brought home. Consequently, the barrio captain, Teofilo Jorda, ordered two of his barrio
policemen then present, Domingo Pajac and Benito Sacay, to help him in taking
Tapong to the house of Pelagia Tapong Gutaba, a cousin of the deceased. While they were on their
way, the five accused, each armed with a piece of wood suddenly emerged between the houses of
Victoria Pajac and Elicito Gutaba, and with the accused Alfonso Pajenado focusing his flashlight on
the eyes of Tapong, they started beating the latter in different parts of his body until he fell. At the
time of the incident, the street was well-lighted by the light coming from a Petromax lamp in the
house of one Donata Pajac. Teofilo Jorda who was following behind and who witnessed the entire
incident blew his whistle and tried to stop the said accused from beating Tapong, but they did not
heed him. After Tapong fell down, the five accused ran away.
Teofilo Jorda aided by rural policeman Pajac and Sacay brought Tapong to hs house and attempted
to secure a statement from him. But, the deceased was already in a coma and was unable to talk.
So, Jorda sent for Tapong's relatives who took the deceased to the poblacion of Las Navas to seek
medical attendance, but Tapong died while they were on the way.
Issue: WON the accused is criminally liable despite the defense that the act was in fulfillment of his
duty
Held: WHEREFORE, modified as thus indicated, the decision under review is affirmed in all other
respects, with costs against the appellants.
The appellants dispute the findings of the trial court that all the accused helped one another in
beating the deceased Tapong with pieces of wood. Conspiracy, however, may be inferred from the
appellants' conduct. The five accused emerged between the houses of Victoria Pajac and Elisoto
Gutaba. All of them were armed with pieces of wood. The accused Alfonso Pajenado had with him a
flashlight which he focused on the eyes of Jorge Tapong while they were all beating Tapong. All of
them fled after Tapong fell down due to the blows inflicted upon him. It is evident that they had
community of design.
The appellants, likewise, contend that the crime committed by them, if any, is only homicide and not
murder in view of the absence of the qualifying circumstance of either treachery and/or abuse of
superior strength. There was treachery because the five accused suddenly intercepted Tapong while
he was on his way to the house of Pelagia. The appellants resorted to a mode of attack which
insured the consummation of the crime without any risk to themselves. The victim was unarmed and
he had no time to defend himself in view of the suddenness of the assault and the fact that he was
drunk at the time. Alevosia qualifies the killing as murder. It is not necessary to resolve whether
there was abuse of superior strength because the circumstance, if present, would be absorbed in
treachery.
11
Appellants further contend that the trial court failed to appreciate in their favor the mitigating
circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. They claim that the weapons used are
mere pieces of wood, and the fact that only seven blows were dealt the deceased by the five of
them, only two of which turned out to be fatal, shows that the tragic and grievous result was far from
their minds. The record shows, however, that the offense committed was characterized by treachery
and tile appellants left the scene of the crime only after the victim had fallen down. Hence, the
mitigating circumstance of lack of intention cannot be appreciated in favor of the appellants.
12
