Case Digest (G.R. No. 199877)
Facts:
The case arose from an alleged robbery with homicide on May 31, 2001 at the corner of Mercedes and Market Avenues, Pasig City, where the prosecution alleged that Arturo Lara pointed a gun, demanded a bag containing PHP 230,000, chased and fired at Joselito Bautista, who later died; an Information was filed June 14, 2001. At trial prosecution witnesses, notably Enrique Sumulong, identified Lara in a police line-up; Lara claimed alibi and presented two witnesses; the RTC convicted him of robbery with homicide on October 1, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed on July 28, 2011, and this Court denied the appeal.
Issues:
- Is the identification obtained in the police line-up inadmissible because Arturo Lara was without counsel?
- May Lara raise for the first time on appeal that his warrantless arrest was illegal so as to nullify his conviction?
- Was the evidence sufficient to convict Lara of robbery with homicide?
- Should Lara's alibi have been credited to acquit him?
Ruling:
The Court denied the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision. It held that Lara waived any objection to his warrantless arrest by failing to move to quash before plea under Sec. 9, Rule 117; that identification from the police line-up was admissible because the right to counsel attaches only at custodial investigation under Section 12, Article III; that the evidence, though largely circumstantial, satisfied the requisites of Section 4, Rule 133 and supported conviction; and that Lara's alibi failed in view of positive and credible identification and physical proximity to the scene.
Ratio:
The Court applied the waiver rule in Sec. 9, Rule 117 to bar belated attack on jurisdiction over the person and reiterated that an allegedly illegal arrest does not automatically void a conviction supported by admissible evidence. Relying on precedent, the Court held that a police line-up is not per se part of custodial investigation so the constitutional right to counsel under Section 12, Article III had not attached; consequently the identifications remained admissible. Finally, the Court found the circumstantial facts unbroken and consistent with guilt and that categorical, daylight identification by an unbiased witness outweighed the inherently weak defense of alibi under Section 4, Rule 133.
Doctrine:
- Objections to the legality of arrest are waived if not raised before plea under Sec. 9, Rule 117.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)