People vs Catbagan

FACTS:

After receiving complaints about the gunshots coming from the residence of Danilo

Lapidante, who was then was celebrating his birthday, appellant Carmelo Catbagan,

an investigator of the Criminal Investigation Service, Philippine National Police, went

to the latter’s house to verify who among their group had been firing the Armalite

rifle. Suddenly, a piece of stone was hurled from the direction of the celebrant’s house,

hitting Catbagan. Irritated, he ordered his companion, Zosimo Pavabier, to look for the

one who threw the stone. At that moment, Sgt. Celso Suico of the Philippine Air Force

and of the Presidential Security Group, the one responsible for firing the shots,

approached and extended his hand towards Catbagan as he introduced himself.

Completely ignoring the gesture of the latter, Catbagan drew out his .9mm automatic

pistol and fired successively at Suico. Ernesto Lacaden, companion of Suico, who was

abruptly awakened as the shots were fired, disembarked from the parked owner-type

jeep where he was sleeping. Unexpectedly, two shots were also fired at him by

Catbagan. Almost simultaneously, Catbagan directed his attention to Lapidante who

was then inside their compound and running towards the main door of their house

upon the prompting of his wife to evade the assailant. But before he could reach the

safety of their abode, two rapid shots were fired by Catbagan, one of which hit him in

the upper part of his body. As a consequence of the injuries they sustained, Suico and

Lapidante died, whereas Lacaden had to be treated and confined in the hospital.

In his defense, Catbagan argued that he was justified in shooting the victims, as he

was merely defending himself and fulfilling his sworn duties. He claimed that the

victims were rushing and encircling him, Lacaden toting an ice-pick while Suico drew a

gun from his waist and aimed the pistol at him. Simultaneously, he heard Lapidante

shouting, which he believed was asking for a long gun. Threatened of his safety, he

drew his own gun fired at the aggressors. He then surrendered himself and his

firearms to his superior officer at the CIDG Office. The lower court, nonetheless,

convicted him with the crime of homicide, murder, and frustrated murder.

ISSUE:

1) Whether or not the appellant was justified in shooting the victims as a direct result

of his fulfillment of a duty.

2) Whether or not the appellant was entitled to a justifying circumstance of self-

defense.

3) Whether or not the appellant was entitled to a mitigating circumstance of voluntary

surrender.

4) Whether or not the characterization of the crimes charged by the trial court was

correct.

HELD:

1) No. Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides that a person who acts in

the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office does not incur any

criminal liability, provided that the following requisites must concur: 1) the accused

must have acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or

office; and 2) the injury caused or the offense committed should have been the

necessary consequence of such lawful exercise. In the instant case, the above

mentioned requisites were absent. The appellant was not performing his duties at the

time of the shooting as there was no proof that he had personal knowledge on who had

been firing the Armalite, nor he was there to effect an arrest. The fatal injuries that he

inflicted on the victims were not a necessary consequence of the performance of his

duty as a police officer.

2) No. Article 11 of the RPC provides that anyone who acts in defense of his person or

rights do not incur criminal liability, provided that the following circumstances concur:

1) unlawful aggression; 2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or

repel it; and 3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending

himself. In the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Suico, only a majority of the

elements of self-defense were present. However, he may still be credited with a

mitigating circumstance in accordance with Article 13 of the RPC. With regard to the

circumstances surrounding the shooting of Lapidante and Lacaden, no unlawful

aggression was shown. Thus, the justifying circumstance of self-defense will not apply.

3) Yes. In order for voluntary surrender to mitigate criminal liability, the following

elements must concur: 1) the offender has not been actually arrested; 2) the offender

surrendered himself to a person in authority; and 3) the surrender was voluntary. It is

sufficient that that act be spontaneous and clearly indicative of the intent of the

accused to surrender unconditionally. At the time of his surrender, appellant had not

actually been arrested. He surrendered himself and his firearm to a person in

authority, the chief of the Assistant Directorate for Intelligence of the Philippine

National Police. Finally, the surrender was voluntary and spontaneous; it thus showed

intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities. Thus, he was credited with the

mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

4) No. The crimes were not properly characterized except with the case of Suico.

Treachery was alleged in the case, thus qualifying the shooting of Lapidante and

Lacaden as murder and frustrated murder respectively. In order to establish treachery,

the following must be proven: 1) the employment of such means of execution as would

give the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and 2) the

deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution. With regard to the

shooting of Lapidante and Lacaden, the Court held that even if the positions of the

victims were vulnerable, there was still no treachery, as the appellant did not

deliberately adopt such mode of attack. His decision to shoot them was clearly sudden.

Thus, in the case of Lapidante, the Court modified the crime from murder to homicide;

while in the case of Lacaden, the crime was modified from frustrated murder to less

serious physical injuries.