SC: Cops could shoot aggressive offenders

The Supreme Court has ruled that policemen are not always required to fire warning shots before shooting an aggressive offender because they have the right, during exceptional circumstances, to use force to subdue or kill the offender just to save the lives of others. This was the ruling of the High Tribunal's first division, presided by Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., reversing an earlier decision of the Sandiganbayan that dismissed a policeman from service for shooting to death a fleeing robber.

The SC in effect acquitted SP02 Ruperto Cabanlig and ordered his immediate release from jail stating, "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."

The ruling said further, "In exceptional circumstances, 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 enforcer's failure to issue a warning is excusable."

The Sandiganbayan found Cabanlig, once assigned as town policeman of Peñaranda in Nueva Ecija, guilty for killing robbery suspect Jimmy Valino on September 28, 1992.

Cabanlig had defended that there was no other way but to shoot Valino when the latter grabbed and successfully disarmed a policeman of his M16-armalite rifle while Valino was in the custody of policemen inside a vehicle.

The SC said Cabanlig's shooting of Valino was an immediate and spontaneous reaction against imminent danger. The weapon grabbed by Valino was not just any firearm, but an M16-armalite, which could kill all the policemen escorting Valino at the time, on their way to recover the loot.

"For what is the purpose of a warning? A warning is issued when policemen have to identify themselves as such and to give opportunity to an offender to surrender. A warning in this case was dispensable. Valino knew that he was in the custody of policemen," the SC ruled.

The SC, however, said Cabanlig, while acquitted of homicide, and the other policemen escorting Valino, are liable for gross negligence. Records showed the escorting policemen did not restrain Valino with a handcuff. The SC said the reason that there were no handcuffs available at the police station is a very flimsy excuse. "They should have tightly bound Valino's hands with rope or some other sturdy material," said the High Tribunal.- Rene U. Borromeo