Digest - People v. Lapitaje

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CASE DIGEST
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LAPITAJE

G.R. No. 132042, February 19, 2003
FACTS:
An Information was filed before the trial court against the four accused for Robbery with Frustrated
Homicide to which they all pleaded not guilty. Despite timely medical attention, victim Nelson
Saavedra died by reason of which the Information was amended to Robbery with Homicide.
Offended party Domingo Colonia testified that three armed men robbed his store who introduced
themselves as members of the NPA. After the three left, a gunfire was heard, Nelson Saavedra, a
neighbor of Domingo was shot. The following morning, a dead person was discovered (Reyes),
Domingo recognized the deceased as the person who poked a firearm at his forehead the night before.
When asked to identify the persons apprehended and detained in jail in Catmon, he recognized
accused Arnold Lapitaje. Suspects Lapitaje and Reyes were later identified by the witnesses, while
Baluyos and Arellano were implicated through the testimony of Lt. Col. Mauro Oarga, who testified
that he has seen four men running towards a waiting taxi.
For their defense, all the accused argued that they were in some other place when the crime was
committed, they all denied being involved therein.
The trial court ruled that the evidence so presented by the prosecution finds that all accused acted in
concert in committing the act. The Court finds no merit to the defense of alibi and general denials of
accused.
The trial court portrays a situation that Reyes and Lapitaje are the ones who barged into the house and
pointed the gun to complainant and wife. That the Arellano and Baluyos were watchmen outside and
that after the robbery and upon fear of reprisals from neighbors who responded to the shout for help of
the wife of complainant, the four accused went hurriedly to the waiting taxi on the highway. Such fact
of the four running towards the taxi was duly testified by prosecution witness Col. Oarga. Such
circumstance, Oarga claims had led to the arrest of the four accused and the search on the taxi.
ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the conducted search was lawful rendering the seized items
admissible as evidence?
2. Whether or not the guilt of all the accused were properly established beyond
reasonable doubt?
RULING:
1. No, seized items were inadmissible. With respect to appellant Arnold: By the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses Fred Ares and SPO2 Nuñeza, it is established that Arnold was arrested by Lt.
Col. Oarga. However, it must be stated that the warrantless arrest of appellant Arnold Lapitaje
together with Wendel Arellano and Romy Baluyos was not lawful. Oarga testified that he caused the
arrest of "four men" running towards the taxi since they were acting suspiciously. However, Oarga did
not elaborate why he thought said men were acting suspiciously.
Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides for circumstances where warrantless
arrest are deemed lawful. In the instant case however, none of the aforesaid circumstances were
attendant. The "four men" were not prisoners who had just escaped from a penal establishment. Oarga
did not testify that the "four men" he had seen running towards the taxi have earlier committed or
were actually committing or attempting to commit an offense in his presence.
Page 1 of 2
ABENOJA, RAVEN JOIE G. I JD-1
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CASE DIGEST
Nevertheless, considering that appellant Arnold had entered his plea and actively participated in the
trial of the case, he submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court thereby curing any defect in his
arrest. In spite of said waiver, the firearm and live ammunition taken from the taxi during the search,
cannot be admitted in evidence against appellants because they were seized during a warrantless
search which was not lawful. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of
the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. In the case, the search in the
taxi cannot be justified on the ground that it involves search of a moving vehicle. As earlier found,
Oarga and his men did not have personal knowledge of the crime that had just been committed and
therefore had no probable cause to believe that they will find evidence pertaining to the crime.
Consequently, seized articles allegedly found during the search cannot be admitted as evidence.
2. The Court ruled that Oarga’s testimony of the event leading to the arrest of appellants, having been
in conflict with the other testimonies, is not accurate and could not be a valid basis for the conviction
of appellants Wendel and Romy. Court held that even if the defense of general denial posited by
Wendel and Romy is uncorroborated, the evidence of the prosecution failed to establish the
participation of both accused in the commission of the crime charged.
With regard to appellants Arnold Lapitaje and Mario Reyes, the trial court did not err in finding both
as the perpetrators of the crime of robbery. Despite the inadmissibility of the guns and ammunitions,
both appellants were positively identified by the prosecution witnesses.
However, although appellant Mario may have fired the gun he was holding at the time of robbery,
there is no direct evidence to prove that he or anyone of the appellants had shot deceased Saavedra.
The prosecution failed to present anyone who might have actually seen how the shooting of Saavedra
took place. There was no proof that the gunshot wound which caused the subsequent death of
Saavedra came from any of the guns used by the robbers.
Consequently, appellants Lapitaje and Reyes should have been found guilty only of the simple crime
of Robbery under paragraph 5, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand, Accused-
appellants Romy Baluyos and Wendel Arellano are ACQUITTED, their guilt not having been proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
Page 2 of 2
ABENOJA, RAVEN JOIE G. I JD-1

Digest - People v. Lapitaje

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest - People v. Lapitaje

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest - People v. Lapitaje

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LAPITAJE

You might also like