G.R. No. L-36987-88 - People vs. Catacutan y Taruc

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-36987-88)

Accusations in the Informations

In Criminal Case No. 1261 (murder), the information alleged that, with intent to kill and by means of treachery, the accused—conspiring with two unidentified others—shot Ligaya Santos several times with an unknown firearm, causing mortal gunshot wounds and her death soon thereafter. In Criminal Case No. 1262 (frustrated murder), the information similarly alleged a concerted attack with intent to kill using an unknown firearm, producing gunshot wounds on Renato Licup that were described as necessary mortal and fatal, but which did not result in death due to timely and able medical assistance.

Trial Court’s Findings and Sentences

The trial court adjudged the accused guilty of murder qualified by treachery for the death of Ligaya Santos. As to Renato Licup, it found guilt only for attempted murder because Licup would not have died even without medical attention, thus negating the elements of frustrated murder as framed in the information. The court also rejected nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance, reasoning that the site of the shooting was well lighted and that there was insufficient evidence that nighttime was purposely chosen to facilitate the crimes. The trial court further considered recidivism, based on the accused’s admission that in 1963 he had been convicted of murder and frustrated murder, served a sentence of 8 years to 14 years, was granted parole, and was a parolee at the time of the August 22, 1971 incident.

As to penalty, the trial court sentenced the accused to attempted murder qualified with treachery in Criminal Case No. 1262, imposing an indeterminate sentence from FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor as maximum. For Criminal Case No. 1261, it sentenced him to DEATH and ordered indemnity and damages: P12,000.00 for death, P10,000.00 as moral damages, and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages.

The Prosecution’s Version of Events

The prosecution narrated that at about 9 o’clock in the evening of August 22, 1971, a block rosary procession occurred in Tondo, Manila, starting from the house of Mrs. Fely Franco on Wagas Street, turning left to Moriones, and ending at the house of Aling Mading on Masinog Street. Witnesses placed Ligaya Santos, her daughter Leticia, Ligaya Castillo, Federico Bernal, and Fely Franco among the participants. After the prayer, which lasted about twenty minutes, the participants went down the house, and as they reached the gate, Leticia Santos saw the accused aim a gun at his mother and immediately fire a shot, preceded by a remark “paputukin natin.” The accused was said to have two companions: one brandishing a jungle bolo and the other aiming a sling with a dart at the approaching group.

The prosecution stated that the accused fired a total of four shots. One shot hit Renato Licup, and another hit Ligaya Santos. After Leticia saw her mother fall, she shouted for help. The accused and his companions allegedly ran away immediately thereafter. Both victims were rushed to Mary Johnston Hospital in Tondo. On the way, Ligaya Santos expired. The record included an autopsy report by Dr. Abelardo Lucero, and a medical certificate by Dr. Florencio P. Neri describing the injury to Renato Licup. The prosecution also relied on police investigation testimony and witness identifications, including statements by eyewitnesses that pinpointed the accused as the gunwielder, and the testimony of Leticia Santos, Renato Licup, and Federico Bernal for the prosecution.

The prosecution further stated that the accused was finally arrested more than a year after the incident on August 30, 1972, and that during trial the accused admitted his previous conviction.

The Accused’s Version and Assignments of Error

The accused claimed he was merely a participant in the block rosary procession. He asserted that Renato Licup, Romeo Santos, and their companions allegedly “suddenly appeared” and fired upon them without warning, describing it as an ambush. The accused suggested that two “warring groups”—one headed by Romeo Santos (the son of Ligaya Santos) and the other led by the accused—fought it out, with each group firing toward the other. He did not present witnesses to corroborate this narrative.

The accused attacked the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence by alleging that the testimonies of Leticia Santos and Renato Licup were not congruent on material points. The alleged discrepancy, however, concerned only minor details on the procession’s starting point. He also contended that the trial court erred in concluding that treachery existed, arguing that if the intended victim was Ligaya Santos, then there would be no necessity to hide or prepare for an opportune time. He maintained, in effect, that the prosecution’s evidence did not support treachery.

The Court’s Evaluation of Credibility and the Identity of the Shooter

The Court held that the trial court committed no reversible error in preferring the prosecution’s version. It observed that the accused’s purported theory of an “ambush” by a rival group lacked corroboration because he presented no witness and did not file a complaint with the police. The Court also noted that when Patrolman Ranulfo Soriano went to the accused’s house on the evening of August 22, 1971, it was found to be abandoned, and the accused was arrested only on August 30, 1972, more than a year later. These circumstances undermined the accused’s attempt to shift blame to others.

On the alleged inconsistency between Leticia Santos and Renato Licup, the Court found that the discrepancy involved only a minor matter regarding the procession’s route and starting point. It emphasized that the crucial point remained consistent in both accounts: the accused was identified as the person who fired the shots that hit Ligaya Santos and Renato himself.

Treachery and Its Presence in the Shooting

As to treachery, the Court affirmed the trial court’s conclusion. It reasoned that the factual circumstances supported not only the element of surprise but also a corresponding advantage for the accused and his companions. The Court took into account the record showing that the accused had a previous misunderstanding with Ligaya Santos and that when he attacked her suddenly, he acted in company with armed men. This collective setting, coupled with the suddenness of the attack, reflected the presence of treachery as found by the trial court.

Penalty, Recidivism, and the Limits Imposed by Vote Requirement

The Court agreed that the penalties imposed by the trial court were legally justified in light of the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. The record showed that the accused had a prior conviction for murder and frustrated murder, had served his sentence, and was a parolee at the time of the incident. The Court also sustained the trial court’s treatment of nocturnity, which it had declined to consider due to lack of evidence that nighttime was purposely chosen and due to the well-lighted nature of the scene.

However, the Court ruled that the death penalty could not be affirmed because of a lack of the necessary number of votes. It therefore modified the judgment accordingly.

Appellate Jurisdiction Note in the Decision

The Court also addressed an appellate procedural issue reflected in the record. While it noted that Criminal Case No. 1261 was not appealed because the dea

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-36987-88)

Pedro Catacutan alias “Pedro Duling” was prosecuted for murder and frustrated murder before the defunct Circuit Criminal Court of Manila.
The trial court convicted him in Criminal Case No. 1261 for murder qualified by treachery for the death of Ligaya Santos, and in Criminal Case No. 1262 for attempted murder qualified with treachery for the injuries suffered by Renato Licup.
The murder case was not appealed because the records of death penalty cases were required to be forwarded to the Supreme Court for review and judgment under Rule 122, Sec. 9.
The frustrated murder case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the matter was treated in the Supreme Court decision.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The plaintiff-appellee was The People of the Philippines.
The accused-appellant was Pedro Catacutan y Taruc.
The Supreme Court reviewed Criminal Case No. 1261 due to the imposed death penalty.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction in Criminal Case No. 1262.
The Supreme Court modified the penalty in Criminal Case No. 1261 because of lack of the necessary number of votes to affirm the death penalty.

Key Factual Allegations

The informations alleged that on August 22, 1971, at nighttime, in Manila, the accused, conspiring with two unknown companions, attacked Ligaya Santos with treachery by shooting her several times with an unknown firearm, causing mortal gunshot wounds.
The information for frustrated murder alleged that on the same date, the accused, conspiring with two unknown companions, attacked Renato Licup by shooting him several times with an unknown firearm, inflicting gunshot wounds that were necessary mortal and fatal, and that murder did not result only because timely and able medical assistance prevented death.
The prosecution’s version placed the incident during a block rosary procession in Tondo, Manila, with participants led by Ligaya Santos.
The prosecution stated that after the participants reached the gate, the accused aimed his gun and remarked “paputukin natin” before firing.
The prosecution described that the accused had two companions, one wielding a jungle bolo and another aiming a sling with a dart, while the group moved backward after shots were fired.
The prosecution testified that the accused fired a total of four shots, with one shot hitting Renato Licup and another hitting Ligaya Santos, whose death occurred soon thereafter.
The prosecution alleged that both victims were rushed to Mary Johnston Hospital at Tondo, where Ligaya Santos expired en route.
The prosecution supported Ligaya Santos’s death with an autopsy report describing a gunshot wound through-and-through the head with brain laceration and subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage as the cause of death.
The prosecution presented a medical certificate of injury for Renato Licup showing gunshot wounds to the left flank with specific wound characteristics and a “rule out” bond injury note.

Defense Theory and Trial Strategy

The defense claimed the accused was a participant in the block rosary procession.
The accused asserted that it was Renato Licup, Romeo Santos, and their companions who suddenly appeared and fired upon them in an alleged ambush.
The defense argued that two warring groups—one allegedly led by Romeo Santos and the other by the accused—fought it out, each group firing toward the other.
On appeal, the accused primarily attacked the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, arguing that the testimonies of Leticia Santos and Renato Licup were not congruent on material points.
The defense maintained that the discrepancies concerned only a minor point about the procession’s starting house.
The defense further argued that the trial court erred in finding treachery, positing that if the intended victim was Ligaya Santos, there was supposedly no need for preparation or hidden advantage.
The defense offered no witness to corroborate the alleged ambush by the other group.
The defense asserted a failure to file a complaint by the prosecution was not justified, and relied on the defense narrative that the police found the accused’s house abandoned when police visited soon after the incident and arrested him only after about a year.

Witness Credibility Issues

The accused argued that Leticia Santos and Renato Licup did not match on a material point regard