People of the Philippines v Catbagan
J Panganiban
G.R. Nos. 149430-32. February 23, 2004
FACTS:
 03/15/1998: Danilo Lapidante’s advance birthday party in SJDM, Bulacan with
many relatives and friends in attendance (woot woot).
o Sgt. Celso Suico (from the PAF and PSG) fired shots with his Armalite
Rifle; election gun ban was in effect so the attention of Carmelo
Catbagan (Investigator, Criminal Investigation Service, PNP) was
called.
o 5:00pm - Catbagan went to the lot where party was held to ask who
fired the shots, no one gave a positive answer so he left.
o Some minutes before, Lapidante conducted some of his guests home
with his jeep. Suico and Ernesto Jun Lacaden (Suico’s companion)
were with him. Suico returned his armalite to his residence but
substituted it with a .45 caliber pistol.
o 5:30pm - Catbagan returned to the party (with Jess Fababier). He again
inquired about the gunshots and Sgt. Suico answered that it was
nothing. Someone hurled a stone that landed on a tree and then hit
Catbagan. Irritated, Catbagan directed Fababier to look for the person
who threw the stone.
o Sgt. Suico went out the pedestrian gate to introduce himself to
Catbagan and say that he was a member of the PSG. Catbagan ignored
this, drew out his .09mm automatic pistol and fired successively at
Suico, who said ‘Huwag, Pare.” Catbagan fired more shots, victim fell
to the ground, bloodied and dying from mortal wounds.
o Lacaden was napping inside the jeep when the shots were fired and he
went down without knowing what was happening. Two shots were
fired at him by Catbagan. He was hit by one and fell down.
o Lapidante (who was inside the compound) was prompted by his wife to
run but before he could enter his house, two rapid shots were aimed at
him, with one hitting him in the upper part of his body.
o Suico died on the spot, Lapidante died in the hospital, Lacaden had to
be treated and was confined in a hospital.
 Version of the Defense:
o Ernesto Purbos heard the successive gunshots bet 9-11 am, and
reported it to Catbagan. He was told not to mind it so he went home. He
heard them again at around 4pm, and Catbagan told him that he was
going to call the attention of the Barangay Captain.
o Zosimo Pavabier corroborated Purbos’ testimony. In his version of the
events, Suico uttered that he was a PSG mem, drew his .45 caliber
pistol and cocked it. Catbagan drew his gunand fired at Suico. Lacaden,
who was attacking Catbagan from the side was shot by the latter once.
 Seeing this, Lapidante went to his shouting “Akina iyong
mahaba.” Catbagan made one shot upward, yelling at
o
o

Lapidante “Pare, pare, huwag kang tatakbo!” As Lapidante
continued, Catbagan fired at him once.
Jonathan Bellosillo (Barangay Captain) confirmed that
complaint/report was made by Catbagan about a gunfiring incident.
Carmelo Catbagan- basically same as Pavabier’s version. A rock was
thrown at him at Lapidante’s compound. Lacaden (holding an icepick)
and Suico (holding a gun) rushed at him. He drew his gun while
stepping backwards and fired at his aggressors. He saw Lapidante
rushing back to his house, shouting “akina yung mahaba!” He fired a
warning shot, uttering: ‘Tumigil ka, huwag kang kikilos’. Lapidante did
not heed Catbagan’s warning and continued to rush. Fearing that
Lapidante might be able to get hold of the long gun, Catbagan fired a
shot at him once.
RTC Ruling:
o Appellant did not know who had fired shots, thus he could not claim
that he went there to perform his duty to make an arrest.
o Re Suico: Unlawful aggression on part of the victim, but means to repel
aggression was unreasonable. Appellant was credited with incomplete
self-defense bc he lost his right to kill or wound the victim after
unlawful aggression had ceased. No evident premeditation and
treachery in the killing so appellant was guilty of only homicide.
o Re Lapidante: RTC rejected self-defense and ruled that treachery
existed because victim was shot with his back to Catbagan.
o Re Lacaden: Court found that he was shot in the back while fleeing.
RTC rejected that Lacaden was carrying an icepick at the time of the
shooting, and even if he was, it was of no threat to Catbagan bc
Lacaden was too far from him. Self-defense could not be appreciated.
 RTC found treachery in the crime bc he did not pose imminent
danger to appellant – in fact, he was running away from the
scene, and appellant used his pistol to wound his vital organs.
 Death did not ensue by reason of causes independent of will of
appellant – court found him guilty of frustrated murder.
ISSUES:
1. W/N appellant was justified in shooting the victims as a direct result of his
fulfillment of a lawful duty
o No.
o Appellant is correct in arguing that he had the legal obligation to
maintain peace and order but he was not justified in shooting the
victims.
o Art 11: 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.
o Requisites for Art 11: 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
o
o
2.
W/N he could use self-defense as a valid... defense
o Re Suico: There is unlawful aggression on Suico’s part – aiming a
cocked gun at Catbagan
o BUT Catbagan employed unreasonable means to retaliate
 Catbagan continuously fired his gun even if Suico
was already dispossessed of his gun due to gunshot
wounds
 Suico was also inebriated af so it would’ve been
easier for Catbagan to subdue victim w/o resorting to
excessive means.
o No provocation on part of person resorting to self-defense – he
just went there to determine who fired the gunshots.
o Catbagan CANNOT use self-defense because he was not able
to prove all elements of self-defense (necessity of means
employed). But he may still be credited with mitigating
circumstances under Art 13 RPC.
o
o
should have been the necessary consequence of such lawful
exercise.
o Requisites are ABSENT. Appellant not performing his duty bc
men he shot had not been indiscriminately firing guns in his
presence; he wasn’t there to effect an arrest.
Appellant was there to determine who had fired the shots (he’s dutybound to maintain peace and order), but him inflicting fatal injuries
were not a necessary consequence of the performance of his duty.
People v Cabrera
o In People v Cabrera, victim created disturbance in the
presence of the accused who immediately intervened and
subdued the former.
o Present case: Appellant had no personal knowledge who fired
the shots. His only duty was to determine who fired shots.
Re Lapidante:
o No unlawful aggression. It cannot consist merely of oral threat
or intimidating stance or posture.
o RTC ratiocination that SC agrees with:
 To this Court, the belief on the part of Catbagan that
the victim was about to retrieve a rifle from the
doorside of the house, existed only in his
imagination.
o “Ang mahaba! Ang mahaba!”
 Lapidante et al had just arrived from delivering the
armalite back to Suico’s house.
 Lapidante was gripped w fear and was obviously
trying to escape from harm. Catbagan couldnt validly
state that he was in imminent danger from Lapidante.
o
o
Running back to his house to take a more advantageous
position = unlawful aggression
 NO.
 No clear purpose in Lapidante’s retreating
 He never attacked Catbagan in the first place so he
did not begin unlawful aggression
Self-defense cannot be used because there is no unlawful
aggression (sine qua non of self-defense)
Re Lacaden:
o No unlawful aggression on Lacaden’s part.
o Lacaden was shot in the back, meaning he wasn’t facing
Catbagan, and wasn’t attacking him with the icepick either.
o Icepick wasn’t presented as evidence.
o Even IF Lacaden had icepick, he was too far from Catbagan.
Appellant himself clarified that Lacaden was 6-7meters away
from him, and that the latter’s arms were raised upward.
o No self-defense.
3.
W/N he could be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender
o Yep.
o 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.
o Act must be spontaneous & indicative of intent of
unconditional surrender bc there is acknowledgement of guilt
or desire to save authorities from searching for culprit.
#thoughtful
o Catbagan immediately called his superior to tell him of incident and
convey his intention to surrender. Appellant surrendered himself & his
firearm the next day.
1) He had not been arrested yet
2) He surrendered himself to the Chief of Ass. Directorate for
Intelligence of the PNP
3) Surrender was voluntary and spontaneous + he owned
responsibility to the shooting.
4.
W/N the characterization of the crimes and penalties imposed by the trial court
was correct.
o Suico – Homicide
o No treachery – shooting is frontal encounter
o No premeditation
o Charges of homicide are correct
o
o
Lapidante - Murder
o No treachery – just bc victims were vulnerable = treachery
agad
o No premeditation
o Incorrect charges - should not be murder, should be homicide
instead
Lacaden – Frustrated Murder
o No treachery - just bc victims were vulnerable = treachery
agad
o No premeditation either.
o Actually, no intent to kill also – him being shot was brought
about by confrontation bet Catbagan and Suico
o Appellant wasn’t even looking at him since his focus was on
the person shouting “Ang mahaba, ang mahaba!”
o Incorrect charges - correct finding would be Less Serious
Physical Injuries.
Catbagan’s Penalties:
 Suico – Homicide
o Reclusion temporal but bc he proved majority of
elements of self-defense, penalty may be lowered to
prision correccional.
o Mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is
present, so penalty shall be imposed in its minimum
period.
o Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable to case –
minimum penalty shall be arresto mayor
o Civil indemnity for death (for heirs): P50k.
o For loss of earning capacity: P135, 748.80
 Lapidante - Homicide
o Reclusion temporal again
o Mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is
present, so penalty shall be imposed in its minimum
period.
o Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable to case but
minimum penalty for Indeterminate Sentence would
be prision mayor.
o Civil indemnity for death (for heirs): P50k.
o Actual damages: P13,850
o Moral damages: P50,000
o Loss of earning capacity P1,980,763.20
 Lacaden - Less Serious Physical Injuries
o Arresto mayor, minimum period bc of mitigating
circumstances.
o Actual damages: P4,589.86
Naubos braincells ko dun.