GR 149430; (February, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 149430-32; February 23, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. CARMELO CATBAGAN, appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Carmelo Catbagan was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, for Homicide, Murder, and Frustrated Murder. The charges stemmed from a shooting incident on March 15, 1998, during a birthday party at the victim’s residence in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. The prosecution established that the appellant, armed with a .9mm pistol, shot and killed Danilo Lapidante and Celso Suico, and wounded Ernesto Lacaden. The prosecution’s narrative depicted an unprovoked attack by the appellant.
The defense, however, claimed self-defense. Appellant testified that he was merely a passerby when he was suddenly accosted and attacked by a group of men, including the victims, who were allegedly drunk and armed. He asserted that Suico fired a gun at him first, prompting him to draw his own licensed firearm and shoot back in fear for his life, resulting in the deaths and injury.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the appellant successfully proved the justifying circumstance of self-defense, thereby exonerating him from criminal liability.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties and damages. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove the essential element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victims. Unlawful aggression is a conditio sine qua non for self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. The appellant’s claim that Suico fired first was uncorroborated and belied by the physical evidence and the credible testimonies of prosecution witnesses, which indicated the appellant was the aggressor. The location and number of gunshot wounds sustained by the victims, who were shot from behind or at close range, negated a sudden, violent attack against the appellant.
The Court found the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation not proven for the killing of Suico, thus reducing the crime from Murder to Homicide. For the killing of Lapidante, treachery was established, warranting a conviction for Murder. The Court also upheld the conviction for Frustrated Murder for the shooting of Lacaden. The penalties were adjusted pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The award of damages was modified, reducing the amounts for loss of earning capacity to be consistent with jurisprudence and deleting the separate award for actual damages in favor of temperate damages, while affirming civil indemnity and moral damages.