Title
People vs. Catapang
Case
G.R. No. 128126
Decision Date
Jun 25, 2001
A tricycle passenger was fatally shot; witnesses identified the gunman, whose alibi was rejected. Convicted of murder, the court affirmed the verdict, modifying damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 128126)

Background of the Case

On August 10, 1994, Provincial Prosecutor Dante H. Diamante filed an information charging Rafael M. Catapang with murder. The allegation specified that on July 2, 1994, Catapang, armed with a .45 caliber handgun, shot Rictorino Aventurado multiple times, resulting in the latter's death. At the arraignment on August 24, 1994, Catapang pleaded not guilty.

Incident Details

Witness Jonathan Garcia testified that on the night of the shooting, he saw Catapang attacking Aventurado while he was inside a tricycle. Despite being scared, Garcia observed the assailant shooting at Aventurado, which led to the victim being taken to Bolanos Hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

Witness Testimonies

Two security guards, Joselito Conyado and Pedrito Mandigma, also witnessed the incident and identified Catapang as the gunman when police conducted an identification lineup shortly after the event. Autopsy results revealed Aventurado sustained multiple gunshot wounds. The police conducted a paraffin test on Catapang, who tested positive for gunpowder residue.

Defense Claims

Catapang denied the accusations, asserting that he was asleep at home during the incident. He acknowledged testing positive for gunpowder residue but claimed it was due to a previous event where he handled a firearm at a baptismal party.

Trial Court's Decision

On December 27, 1995, the trial court found Catapang guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages to the victim's heirs. The court awarded P50,000 for unrealized income, P50,000 as death indemnity, P65,000 for actual expenses, and P20,000 for moral damages.

Appeal and Credibility of Witnesses

Catapang appealed the decision, contesting the credibility of eyewitness testimony. However, the appellate court upheld the trial court's assessment, noting that the lighting conditions allowed the witness to have a clear view of the assailant. The credibility and demeanor of witnesses were considered sufficient to warrant belief in their accounts.

Alibi Defense

The appellate court ruled that for an alibi to be convincing, Catapang needed to provide irrefutable proof that he was at home and that it was impossible for him to be present at the crime scene. The court found this insufficient since his residence was only about 150 meters from where the shooting occurred.

Qualification of the Crime

Treachery was established as Catapang had ambushed the unarmed victim, fitting the legal definition of treachery, which involves an unexpected attack without risk to the offender. Thus, the appellate court agreed with the lower court’s conclusion that the kil

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.