PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SAMUEL CATIGAY Y PANDAY A.K.A. SAMUEL LATIGAY Y PATROCINIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Catigay

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Samuel Catigay, a criminal appeal from a conviction for murder. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, prosecuted Samuel Catigay for shooting his neighbor Antonio Baguio on Christmas morning. The accused appeals his conviction, asking the Supreme Court to reduce the crime to homicide, to recognize three mitigating circumstances in his favor, and to correct the penalty and the damages. The case matters because it is a compact review of the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, the aggravating circumstance of treachery, the mitigating circumstances of vindication of a wrong, sufficient provocation, and voluntary surrender, and the rules on indivisible penalties and civil damages.

Procedural History

An Information for murder was filed against the accused before the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Seventh Judicial Region, Dumaguete City, Branch 39. Upon arraignment, assisted by the Public Attorney's Office, he pleaded not guilty. After pre-trial and trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision dated August 22, 2012, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the heirs of the deceased 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity, 50,000 pesos as moral damages, and 25,000 pesos as temperate damages. From that decision, the accused filed a notice of appeal, and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On the evening of December 24, 2010, the victim Antonio Baguio went to the house of Lorenzo Brumo in Dumaguete City and said he had argued with somebody. Moments later, the accused Samuel Catigay arrived at the gate thrusting a square bar at Antonio. As Lorenzo spoke with Samuel, Antonio came from behind and pushed Samuel's head against the steel gate, then ran away. Samuel went home to have his bleeding head treated.

The following morning, December 25, 2010, at around five o'clock, Lorenzo was at the waiting shed in front of his house when he saw Samuel leave his house, board his tricycle, and drive off. Minutes later, Samuel returned, parked, pulled out a firearm, and fired it toward the riverbank. He then approached Lorenzo and told him that if Antonio arrived, he would kill him. Lorenzo warned him not to do it, but Samuel ignored him. When Antonio appeared, Lorenzo shouted for him to go back. Samuel looked at Antonio and declared that he was going to kill him. Antonio turned and ran, and Samuel shot him at the back, causing him to fall. Samuel fired another shot. The wounded Antonio stood up and ran toward a neighbor's house, while Samuel went home, boarded his motorcycle, and drove off.

The accused testified that he was waylaid and mauled by the deceased that morning, that a fistfight ensued, and that when the deceased tried to box him again near the waiting shed, he instinctively drew his firearm and fired without intending to harm him. He claimed that after the shooting he surrendered to Police Officer Derek Alcoran, the close-in security detail of the provincial director.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused of murder instead of homicide, particularly on the finding of evident premeditation.
• Whether or not treachery attended the commission of the crime.
• Whether or not the mitigating circumstances of vindication of a wrong, sufficient provocation, and voluntary surrender attended the commission of the crime.
• Whether or not the trial court imposed the correct penalty and awarded the correct damages.

Applicable Provisions

Article 13, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, on vindication of a wrong, provides:

That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.

This provision is the basis for the accused's claim of vindication of a grave offense, which the Court rejects because he had time to recover his equanimity.

Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, on the rules for the application of indivisible penalties, provides:

In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.

This provision governs the penalty, since murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, two indivisible penalties.

Article 63, paragraph 2 of the same Code provides:

When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

The Court applies this rule in imposing reclusion perpetua, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that evident premeditation was duly established. Its essence is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. The elements are the time when the accused determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination, and sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution to allow reflection. The Court found all three: the accused armed himself with a gun and tested it by firing toward the riverbank, he declared to Lorenzo and to the victim his intent to kill, and there was sufficient lapse of time because Antonio was not yet there when the accused did all the scheming, and Lorenzo even had time to discourage him. The Court also noted that the night before, the accused had chased the victim with a square bar.

On the second issue, the Court held that treachery attended the crime. Its essence is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, depriving them of any real chance to defend themselves, ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims. The unsuspecting and defenseless deceased was fatally shot from behind.

On the third issue, the Court rejected vindication of a wrong because the alleged offense happened the night before, giving the accused sufficient time to recover his equanimity. It rejected sufficient provocation because the alleged provocation did not immediately precede the killing. It sustained voluntary surrender, since the accused surrendered to a person in authority before being arrested, but held that this mitigating circumstance would not affect the penalty because of the presence of treachery.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the trial court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua. Since treachery was not the qualifying circumstance alleged but evident premeditation, the presence of one aggravating circumstance and one mitigating circumstance did not change the penalty. The Court increased temperate damages to 30,000 pesos, imposed 30,000 pesos as exemplary damages because the killing was attended with treachery, and imposed interest at six percent per annum on all civil damages from finality of the decision until full payment.

Doctrine

For evident premeditation to qualify a killing as murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the time the accused determined to commit the crime, an overt act showing he clung to that determination, and sufficient lapse of time to reflect on the consequences. For treachery, the attack must be sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any real chance to defend himself. Vindication of a wrong requires that the act be committed in immediate vindication of a grave offense, and there is no immediate vindication when the accused had sufficient time to recover his equanimity. Sufficient provocation must immediately precede the act. Voluntary surrender requires that the offender was not actually arrested, that he surrendered to a person in authority or the latter's agent, and that the surrender was voluntary. Under Article 63, when the law prescribes two indivisible penalties and both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attend the crime, the courts allow them to offset one another, and the lesser penalty is applied.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction for murder with modification, increasing temperate damages to 30,000 pesos, imposing 30,000 pesos as exemplary damages, and adding interest at six percent per annum on all civil damages from finality until full payment.

Remember This

Evident premeditation requires cool thought and reflection with sufficient lapse of time, and treachery requires a sudden, unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim. Examiners use this case to test the elements of evident premeditation and treachery, the offsetting of mitigating and aggravating circumstances under Article 63, and the proper award of damages in murder convictions.