People vs. Catacutan

When the original criminal design does not include robbery and the taking of property is committed as a mere afterthought following a killing, the accused cannot be convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide but may be held liable for the separate crimes of homicide and theft.

Edgardo Catacutan y Mortera and Alexander Tan Ngo became “textmates” after Catacutan introduced himself to Ngo outside a Jollibee outlet along Aurora Boulevard. On September 24, 2007, Catacutan visited Ngo at the PND Apartelle in Quezon City. Ngo was found dead the following day with multiple stab wounds and a slashed neck; several personal belongings were missing. Catacutan was eventually charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294, paragraph (1) in relation to Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Nature: Accused-appellant Edgardo Catacutan was charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide for stabbing Alexander Tan Ngo to death on September 24, 2007 and thereafter taking several of Ngo’s personal belongings.

• Prosecution’s Evidence:

  • Security guard Alfredo Ortiz Koh testified that he was on duty at the PND Apartelle on September 24, 2007 starting at 7:00 a.m.; he recorded the arrival of Ngo at 4:25 p.m. and Catacutan’s arrival at 6:00 p.m., the latter identifying himself as “Gerry.” Koh escorted Catacutan to Ngo’s unit after the visitor failed to present identification, and Ngo acknowledged him. Koh logged Catacutan’s departure at 6:05 a.m. the following morning.
  • Robert John Ramos, Ngo’s classmate at UERM College of Medicine, discovered Ngo’s body on the afternoon of September 25, 2007 after Ngo’s unexplained absence from classes. The door was unlocked; blood droplets were visible; the air conditioner and television were on with the television at high volume. Police arrived and documented the scene.
  • Mark P. Adalid, a friend and former schoolmate of Catacutan, testified that during a drinking spree around October 2007, Catacutan showed him a slim, silver Sony Cybershot digital camera containing images of Ngo. Catacutan narrated how he had sexual intercourse with Ngo, felt shortchanged because Ngo paid only PHP 500.00 instead of the agreed PHP 1,000.00, and after Ngo fell asleep, retrieved a five-inch kitchen knife, returned to bed, and stabbed Ngo repeatedly when Ngo embraced him; he then slashed Ngo’s neck to ensure death. Afterwards, Catacutan rummaged through the unit and took a bracelet, an iPod, a cellphone, the digicam, and money. He hid the knife in the comfort room drainage and flushed his briefs down the toilet.
  • NBI Agent Valiant Raganit recovered the knife from the drainage of Ngo’s comfort room based on information from Mark; the knife measured 9.5 inches including the handle.
  • Ngo’s brother, Gerry Ngo, testified that an unknown Smart number contacted him, identifying as “Enzo Corralez.” Posing as a student named “Sheryl,” Gerry engaged in text exchanges wherein Enzo offered a Sony Cybershot T-7 silver digicam for PHP 5,000.00 and mentioned having sold a creative iPod. The CIDG staged an entrapment at SM Centerpoint, but Catacutan did not appear; instead, Mark met the police asset. Mark later revealed to the NBI that “Enzo” was Catacutan and disclosed the confession.
  • Medico-legal officer PCI Annalee Palima interpreted the autopsy report: Alexander Ngo sustained 25 injuries, three of which were fatal, all caused by a sharp-edged or sharp-pointed instrument.

• Defense’s Evidence:

  • Catacutan denied the charge and asserted that on September 24 and 25, 2007, he was at home in Sta. Mesa selling barbecue with his live-in partner. He claimed that he and Mark had a history of fighting in school, implying bias.

• Lower Courts’ Findings:

  • The trial court found that the elements of robbery with homicide were present, relying on the unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence; it held that the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, and abuse of superior strength were not proven.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed, treating Mark’s testimony as an independently relevant statement and holding that the Information sufficiently charged robbery with homicide.

• Sufficiency of the Information: Appellant maintained that the Information described a killing committed before the taking of property, thus charging separate crimes of murder and robbery, not the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. This defect allegedly violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

• Admissibility and Credibility of Koh’s Testimony: Appellant challenged the security guard’s testimony on several grounds: (1) the original logbook was not produced, violating the Best Evidence Rule; (2) Koh’s claim that he asked for identification was belied by Robert’s admission that visitors were not normally screened; (3) it was improbable that Koh remained on duty for a continuous 24-hour shift; and (4) the out-of-court photographic identification was impermissibly suggestive because Mark’s supplementary affidavit containing appellant’s photo was executed on the same day.

• Admissibility of Accused’s Statements to Mark: Appellant argued that Mark’s testimony regarding the circumstances of the killing was purely hearsay and without probative value, as it was offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted.

• Insufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Appellant contended that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing that none of the stolen items, including the digicam, were recovered from his possession.

• Admission and Corroboration: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that appellant himself narrated the events of the incident when confronted after his arrest, corroborating Mark’s testimony, and admitted having sold the stolen items, explaining their non-recovery.

• Admissibility of Koh’s Testimony: The security guard’s testimony was categorical and convincing. Objections to the photocopies of the logbook were waived because no objection was raised during trial. The fact that other visitors were not asked for identification on other occasions was irrelevant under the res inter alios acta rule, and a 24-hour duty shift was not improbable. Further, any defect in the out-of-court identification was cured by Koh’s in-court identification of appellant.

• Admissibility of the Confession to Mark: The statement was admissible as part of the res gestae or, alternatively, as an admission against interest.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: The combination of circumstances — the victim last seen alive with appellant, the discovery of the body with missing items, and appellant’s possession of the missing digicam — formed an unbroken chain establishing guilt.

• Alternative Conviction for Homicide and Theft: Even if the evidence did not prove robbery with homicide, the Information sufficiently informed appellant that he killed Ngo and stole his property, thus permitting conviction for the separate crimes of homicide and theft without violating his right to be informed.

• Admissibility of Accused’s Confession to Mark: Whether Mark’s testimony recounting appellant’s detailed narration of the killing and taking is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.

• Sufficiency of the Information: Whether the Information charging robbery with homicide, but describing a killing that preceded the taking, violated appellant’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

• Nature of the Crime Committed: Whether the evidence proved all elements of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, particularly that the killing was committed “by reason or on occasion of robbery,” or whether the facts warrant convictions for the separate crimes of homicide and theft.

• Admissibility of Accused’s Confession to Mark: Mark’s testimony was not an independently relevant statement, because it was offered to prove the truth of the events it narrated, not merely the fact that the statement was made. It was, however, admissible as an admission against interest under Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The confession was made by a party to the litigation (appellant), involved categorical matters of fact, was voluntarily given, and was adverse to his penal interest. The hearsay rule does not bar a party’s own admissions, as they are presumed reliable precisely because they are self-incriminatory.

• Sufficiency of the Information: The Information alleged that appellant stabbed and killed Ngo and thereafter took his personal belongings. This adequately informed appellant of the acts constituting both homicide and theft. Convicting him of those separate crimes did not violate his right to be informed; the component offenses were both alleged and proved.

• Nature of the Crime Committed: The prosecution failed to establish the fourth element of robbery with homicide — that the killing was committed “by reason or on occasion of robbery.” The original criminal design did not include robbery; appellant killed Ngo because he felt deceived and shortchanged after receiving only PHP 500.00 instead of the promised PHP 1,000.00 for sexual intercourse. The taking of Ngo’s bracelet, iPod, cellphone, digicam, and money occurred after the killing and was a mere afterthought. When robbery follows homicide as an afterthought or minor incident, two separate offenses — homicide and theft — are committed, not the special complex crime. Accordingly, appellant was convicted of homicide under Article 249 and theft under Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Admission against Interest vs. Independently Relevant Statement — An independently relevant statement is admissible only when the fact of its utterance, irrespective of its truth, is relevant. When a statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, it is hearsay and must fall under a recognized exception. A party’s own declaration, however, is admissible as an admission against interest under Section 27, Rule 130 even if hearsay, provided it (a) involves matters of fact, not law; (b) is categorical and definite; (c) is knowingly and voluntarily made; and (d) is adverse to the admitter’s interest. The Court applied this doctrine to admit appellant’s detailed confession to Mark.

• Distinction Between Robbery with Homicide and Separate Crimes of Homicide and Theft — For robbery with homicide to exist, the original criminal design must include robbery, and the killing must be “by reason or on occasion of the robbery.” If the primary intent is to kill, and the taking of property is a mere afterthought, the accused incurs liability for two distinct crimes: homicide and theft. The Court relied on this principle, citing People v. Salazar, People v. Algarme, and People v. Lamsing.

• Proof of Theft Without Recovery of Property — Recovery of the stolen items is not an element of theft. When asportation is proven beyond reasonable doubt, conviction is justified even if the property is not presented in court. Moreover, a person found in possession of a thing recently taken in a wrongful act is presumed to be the taker under Section 3(j), Rule 130.

• Penalty for Theft When Value Is Not Proven — In the absence of independent and reliable evidence of the value of stolen property, courts may either impose the minimum penalty under Article 309 or fix the value based on attendant circumstances. The Court estimated the aggregate value of the stolen items at between PHP 5,000.00 and PHP 20,000.00, applying the amended penalty range under Republic Act No. 10951 retroactively as it was favorable to the accused.

• “In Robbery with Homicide, the robbery is the central purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.”

• “Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, only the fact that such statements were made is relevant and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial. … a statement may be considered an independently relevant statement only when what is sought to be proven by its presentation is the fact that it was made, regardless of whether what was stated is in fact true.”

• “[I]f the original criminal design does not clearly comprehend robbery, but robbery follows the homicide as an afterthought or as a minor incident of the homicide, the criminal acts should be viewed as constitutive of two offenses and not of a single complex offense.”

• “Admissions against interest are those made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or identified in a legal interest with such party, and are admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a witness.”

• People v. Lobrigas, 442 Phil. 382 (2002) — Distinguished the doctrine of independently relevant statements from other hearsay exceptions; used to reject the Court of Appeals’ characterization of Mark’s testimony as an independently relevant statement.

• Unchnan v. Lozada, 603 Phil. 410 (2009) — Clarified the distinction between admissions against interest (admissible whether or not declarant is available) and declarations against interest (secondary evidence, admissible only when declarant is unavailable); applied to uphold the admissibility of appellant’s confession.

• People v. Reyes, 82 Phil. 563 (1949) — Held that conversations among accused overheard by a witness are admissible as admissions; relied upon to support the admissibility of appellant’s statements to Mark.

• People v. Algarme, 598 Phil. 423 (2009) and People v. Lamsing, 318 Phil. 561 (1995)** — Both cases held that when robbery is an afterthought, the accused is liable for separate crimes of homicide and theft; applied as controlling authority.

• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Prescribed current guidelines for civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages in homicide; followed in awarding damages.

• Article 294, paragraph (1) in relation to Article 293, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the special complex crime of robbery with homicide; the Court held that the fourth element (killing by reason or on occasion of the robbery) was not proven.

• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Penalizes homicide; applied to impose an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

• Articles 308 and 309, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951 — Define and penalize theft; the amendment’s retroactive effect was invoked to impose a straight penalty of six months of arresto mayor for theft of property valued between PHP 5,000.00 and PHP 20,000.00.

• Section 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Admission of a party; applied to admit appellant’s confession to Mark as an admission against interest.

• Section 3(j), Rule 130, Rules of Court — Presumption that a person in possession of recently stolen property is the taker; invoked in relation to the digicam.

• Section 2, Indeterminate Sentence Law — Not applicable where the maximum term of imprisonment is less than one year, as in the theft conviction.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), M. Lopez, J. Lopez, and Kho Jr., JJ., concurred.