G.R. No. 245921 - People vs. Pangcatan y Dimao

Case Summary (G.R. No. 245921)

Charges Filed (Informations)

Three informations were filed against Pangcatan: (1) illegal possession of explosives (one hand grenade) in violation of Section 1, R.A. No. 9516 (Crim. Case No. 20344); (2) illegal possession of firearm and ammunition (one .45 Norinco pistol, multiple magazines/ammunition) in violation of Section 28(e)(1) in relation to Section 28(a) of R.A. No. 10591 (Crim. Case No. 20345); and (3) murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (Crim. Case No. 20346) for the fatal shooting of Richelle on January 9, 2015.

Arrest, Motion to Quash, and RTC Rulings

Pangcatan was invited to the police station on January 11, 2015; after a police lineup he was identified by eyewitness Renante and arrested. He filed a timely Motion to Quash and to Suppress Evidence alleging illegal warrantless arrest, unlawful body search, and thus lack of jurisdiction. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the Motion to Quash and later, after trial, found Pangcatan guilty of all three offenses, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for the grenade (per R.A. 9516), prision mayor under the indeterminate sentence scheme for the firearms charge, and reclusion perpetua for murder with monetary awards to the victim’s heirs. The RTC rejected Pangcatan’s alibi and found the eyewitness identification credible.

Court of Appeals Disposition

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s convictions but modified the penalty terms for the firearms conviction to comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law and adjusted the awards for damages in the murder conviction. The CA treated the RTC’s interlocutory denial of the Motion to Quash as not properly appealable in that interlocutory posture and relied on the pretrial admissions and evidence to uphold identification and conviction for murder.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court identified and resolved these principal issues: (1) whether the legality of Pangcatan’s arrest and admissibility of evidence seized are proper subjects of automatic review; (2) whether the evidence established illegal possession of the grenade (R.A. 9516); (3) whether the evidence established illegal possession of the firearm and ammunition (R.A. 10591); and (4) whether the elements of murder (Article 248, RPC) were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Authority to Review Arrest and Jurisdictional Objections

Although objections to arrest and acquisition of jurisdiction ordinarily must be raised before pleading and are deemed waived by a subsequent plea and active participation in trial (Rule 117, Sec. 9), the Supreme Court explained that in an automatic review the entire case is open for examination. Because Pangcatan timely filed a Motion to Quash before arraignment and pursued the issue by certiorari at the CA, the Supreme Court considered the legality of his arrest and the admissibility of the seized items in its automatic review.

Legality of Arrest and Search — Governing Standards

The Court applied the Rules of Court standards on warrantless arrest (Section 5, Rule 113) and searches incident to lawful arrest (Section 13, Rule 126). Under the Rules, warrantless arrest is permissible only under limited conditions (in flagrante delicto; offense just committed with probable cause based on personal knowledge; escapee). The Court emphasized the “immediacy” requirement for hot pursuit arrests (Pestilos v. Generoso and related precedents): as the lapse of time between crime and arrest increases, the officer’s personal knowledge and probable cause necessary for a lawful warrantless arrest diminish.

Supreme Court’s Finding on Arrest and Search

The Court found Pangcatan’s arrest unlawful. He was arrested two days after the killing, on the occasion of being invited to the police station and subjected to a lineup; there was no showing that police officers personally witnessed the commission of the crime or had uncontaminated, immediate facts justifying a hot pursuit arrest. The lapse of two days and the availability of time to procure an arrest warrant undermined any claim of immediacy. Because the arrest was unlawful, the subsequent body search and the items seized thereby could not be considered valid searches incident to a lawful arrest under Section 13, Rule 126; the seized hand grenade, firearm, and ammunition were therefore declared inadmissible.

Effect on the Firearms and Explosives Charges

Given the exclusion of the seized grenade, firearm, and ammunition as fruits of an unlawful arrest and search, the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti for the offenses charged under R.A. No. 9516 and R.A. No. 10591. The three required elements for illegal possession (existence of the weapon/explosive, possession or ownership, and lack of license) were not proven beyond reasonable doubt without the excluded items and attendant evidence. The Supreme Court thus acquitted Pangcatan of Criminal Case Nos. 20344 and 20345 for failure of proof.

Evidence and Proof of Murder — Elements and Application

The Court reaffirmed the substantive elements of murder under Article 248: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused caused the killing; (3) that a qualifying circumstance attended the killing; and (4) that the killing was not parricide or infanticide. The Court held that the corpus delicti of murder (death by criminal act) was established by the Certificate of Death confirming multiple gunshot wounds and other trial evidence. The pivotal factual issue was identification of the assailant and whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Pangcatan was the killer.

Credibility of Eyewitness Identification and Totality of Circumstances

The Supreme Court gave weight to eyewitness Renante’s out‑of‑court identifications and in‑court testimony under the totality‑of‑circumstances test (factors include opportunity to view, degree of attention, accuracy of prior description, level of certainty, time interval, and suggestiveness of identification procedure). Renante viewed the assailant at approximately 30 meters, observed distinguishing features (attire, “flat top” haircut, bandage on left knee, relative build and height), and made an immediate photographic identification the same day from two albums of uniformly sized photos. The Court found the photo‑album procedure and subsequent lineup were not impermissibly suggestive: the album contained multiple photos and there was no record of police coercion or prompting that would single out Pangcatan. Corroborating circumstances — notably Lt. Col. Odal’s testimony confirming Pangcatan had a knee wound two days earlier — reinforced Renante’s credibility. The Court also observed that discrepancies between initial affidavits and in‑court testimony do not necessarily discredit an eyewitness, citing precedent that affidavits may be abbreviated and incomplete.

Alibi and Rejection of Defense Evidence

Pangcatan asserted an alibi that he was conducting intelligence work in Compostela Valley, but he failed to present documentary proof or credible corroboration. Lt. Col. Odal denied issuing such an order. The Court treated the alibi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 245921)

Nature and Source of the Case

Jurisprudence citation: 118 OG No. 46, 12592 (November 14, 2022), Third Division; G.R. No. 245921, October 05, 2020.
Parties: People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee) v. Abdillah Pangcatan y Dimao (accused-appellant).
This appeal arises from the Court of Appeals Decision dated June 21, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01562-MIN, which affirmed convictions for multiple offenses as found by the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

Procedural History

Three separate Informations were filed against Abdillah Pangcatan y Dimao (Criminal Case Nos. 20344, 20345, 20346).
Pangcatan filed a Motion to Quash and to Suppress Evidence on February 27, 2015 alleging illegal warrantless arrest, illegal body search, inadmissibility of items seized, and lack of RTC jurisdiction due to illegal arrest.
RTC denied the Motion to Quash in a Resolution dated April 24, 2015; Pangcatan's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on June 1, 2015.
Arraignment: June 8, 2015; Pangcatan pleaded not guilty.
Trial was conducted with multiple prosecution witnesses; Pangcatan testified as sole defense witness.
RTC issued a Joint Decision on August 13, 2016 convicting Pangcatan of all three offenses and imposing corresponding penalties.
Court of Appeals issued a Decision on June 21, 2018 denying appeal, affirming with modification as to penalty computation and damages; Motion for Reconsideration denied October 24, 2018.
Case reached the Supreme Court in automatic review (G.R. No. 245921), which rendered the final decision dated October 05, 2020.

Informations / Charges (Specifics)

Criminal Case No. 20344: Illegal Possession of Explosives in violation of Section 1, R.A. No. 9516 — alleged possession on or about January 11, 2015 of one (1) hand grenade in Tagum City, Davao del Norte.
Criminal Case No. 20345: Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition in violation of Section 28(e)(1) in relation to Section 28(a) of R.A. No. 10591 — alleged possession on or about January 11, 2015 of one (1) .45 Norinco pistol (Serial No. BA02493) with magazine loaded with 7 rounds inside a leather magazine pouch belt and an olive green sling bag containing four spare magazines each loaded with five rounds.
Criminal Case No. 20346: Murder under Article 248, Revised Penal Code — alleged killing on or about January 9, 2015 of Richelle Anne Marabe Austero with attendant circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength, with intent to kill, and use of a motorcycle to facilitate escape; alleged actual, moral and compensatory damages to heirs.

Facts as Presented by Prosecution (Witness Testimony and Sequence)

Main eyewitness: Renante Cruz — was weeding grass near Sto. Niao Chapel (~30 meters away, separated by highway) on January 9, 2015 when he saw a male and female on a motorcycle stop at Boarder's Inn gate and fight; female (Richelle) left and crossed the highway toward the chapel.
Identification details observed by Renante: driver later identified as Pangcatan; wearing a black jacket, shorts, bandage on left knee, "flat top" haircut, not wearing helmet; driver blocked a hailed tricycle, pointed a gun at driver, ordered Richelle to step out.
Shooting: when Richelle refused, driver allegedly pointed gun at her stomach and shot her twice (stomach and jaw); Renante checked pulse; police arrived about ten minutes later.
Initial photo album identification: Renante went to police station same day, viewed two photograph albums (about 40 photos total) and identified Pangcatan; learned Pangcatan was an Army official with prior complaints to Women’s Desk.
Line-up identification: on January 11, 2015 Renante was invited back to station, shown three individuals; he identified Pangcatan as the assailant standing in the middle; after identification, PO3 Quibrar arrested Pangcatan and read constitutional rights.
Items seized during body search by PO3 Parcon: leather magazine pouch with belt; black plastic pistol holster; .45 Norinco pistol (Serial No. BA02493) loaded with magazine containing 7 rounds; olive green sling bag with four spare magazines each loaded with five rounds; one grenade wrapped in black pouch; Mardee's tactical magazine holster; small brown envelope with white cottons and white bandage; small vial containing liquid wrapped with paper tape; red disposable lighter; leather wallet.
Pangcatan was unable to present permit or license for the seized firearm/ammunition/grenade when asked.
Certification from PNP Firearms and Explosives Office: Pangcatan is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and caliber, specifically the .45 Norinco BA02493 is registered to Florante Gordolan y Olipas (issued Oct 12, 2006; expiry Dec 16, 2008).
Certificate of Death for Richelle: cause of death—multiple gunshot wounds to head and trunk.
Other prosecution witnesses: PO3 Crisanto Quibrar, PO3 Melven Parcon, Lt. Col. Allan Odal, PO1 Kimberly Carillo, PO3 Lino Warren Almonia, SPO2 Romeo M. Obrero, Nercita Marabe Evangelista — provided corroborative and investigative testimony referenced in record citations.

Defense Case (Testimony and Claims)

Pangcatan testified as sole defense witness denying allegations.
Claimed presence in the hinterlands of Compostela Valley on January 9, 2015 conducting intelligence work (alibi).
Claimed invited to police station on January 11, 2015 by PSI Anjanette Tirador; upon arrival, removed .45 Norinco pistol from his waist and placed it in his sling bag after being asked by PSI Tirador; stated he joined line-up with two others, two were sent out, then PO3 Quibrar arrested him after being identified.
Denied receiving any police invitation prior to January 11, 2015.
Presented an acknowledgment receipt (not authenticated in court; original or certified true copy not presented) purportedly relating to the firearm/grenade but lacking signature of immediate superior Lt. Col. Odal and indicating "property accountability" of another officer, 1Lt. Allan M. Bonhoc.
Lt. Col. Odal testified that two days before incident Pangcatan asked to be excused from duty due to knee injury and denied issuing any mission order sending Pangcatan to Compostela Valley for intelligence work.

Motion to Quash / RTC Ruling on Arrest/Search (Pre-trial)

Pangcatan filed Motion to Quash and to Suppress Evidence alleging illegal warrantless arrest and unlawful body search; claimed court lacked jurisdiction due to illegal arrest.
RTC Resolution (April 24, 2015) denied Motion to Quash, reasoning: Tagum City Police had probable cause for warrantless arrest because (1) eyewitness identified accused from photographs shown to him; (2) invitation for accused to appear at station was sent on same day; (3) accused arrived two days later and positively identified in police lineup; and (4) accused was found in possession of firearm, ammunition and hand grenade without authority.
RTC held uncertainty whether frisk occurred before or after lineup but ruled it was the accused's burden to rebut regularity during trial.
Motion for Reconsideration denied June 1, 2015.

Regional Trial Court Decision (August 13, 2016)

Dispositive findings: RTC found proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and convicted Pangcatan for all three offenses.
Sentences imposed by RTC:
- Criminal Case No. 20344 (Illegal possession of hand grenade): reclusion perpetua (per Section 3, R.A. No. 9516).
- Criminal Case No. 20345 (Illegal possession of firearm/ammunition): under Indeterminate Sentence Law, imprisonment of ten (10) years of prision mayor (RTC did not provide minimum/maximum terms as required).
- Criminal Case No. 20346 (Murder): reclusion perpetua; ordered forfei