The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Reynaldo Arena y Losande, also known as "Dagul," and affirmed his conviction for robbery with homicide, upholding the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on him.
The Case
Arena was charged with robbery with homicide. According to the Information dated December 21, 2010, on or about August 29, 2010 in the City of Legazpi, Arena, conspiring with a person whose identity was still unknown, shot and killed Abel V. Morota and, with intent of gain and by means of violence and intimidation, poked a gun at Joseph Malasa y Madriana and took money amounting to PHP 11,000.00 from him.
On arraignment, Arena pleaded not guilty. According to the testimonies for the prosecution, Malasa was the caretaker and cook at Banjo's Chicken Inato, while Abel Morota served as the store driver. On August 29, 2010, around 8:25 p.m., the store was about to close. Malasa and Morota stood outside facing each other. When Malasa turned his back from Morota, he heard a gunshot, which prompted him to face the direction where it came from. He saw Morota fall down. Morota was able to stand up again, but a man wearing a hat, a black jacket with a hood, and a handkerchief below the nose to the chin, pointed a gun at Morota's forehead and shot him. Morota fell to the ground, bloodied.
The assailant then approached Malasa and pointed the gun at Malasa's forehead. Malasa raised his hands behind his neck and crouched down as the assailant frisked him. The assailant took money from Malasa's pocket amounting to PHP 11,000.00. Malasa was able to look closely at the assailant during this time and noted the assailant's squint eye. The assailant fled the scene on a motorcycle driven by another person. Morota was rushed to the hospital where he was declared dead on arrival.
A month after the incident, Lolita, Morota's wife, heard of a carnapping incident in a nearby town. She requested photos of the suspects and showed them to Malasa. Malasa recognized Arena as the assailant. They proceeded to the police station and Malasa confirmed that Arena was the person who shot Morota. He again identified Arena in open court. The bullets recovered from Morota's body were matched to a gun issued to Arena and admittedly in his possession on the day of the crime.
Arena testified in his defense, confirming that the gun was issued to him by the Armed Forces of the Philippines as a Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit member, and alleged he was being used as a scapegoat.
The Issue
Arena argued that the manner by which he was identified as the perpetrator was suspicious and tainted with impermissible suggestion, since the victim's wife, an untrained civilian, conducted the photographic identification. He also argued that it was incredible that Malasa could have seen the perpetrator's face despite the coverings described.
The Ruling
The Court applied the totality of circumstances test and the danger signals of erroneous identification listed in People v. Pineda. It found that the absence of nearly all the danger signals supported the reliability of eyewitness Malasa. The Court held that of the danger signals, only one was present — that before the commission of the crime, the witness had limited opportunity to see the accused — but that this alone did not preclude correct identification.
The Court ruled: "ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED. The August 18, 2023 Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No. 13485 is AFFIRMED." Arena was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide punished under Article 293 in relation to Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
By the Numbers
- Date of incident: August 29, 2010, around 8:25 p.m.
- Date of Information: December 21, 2010
- Amount taken from Malasa: PHP 11,000.00
- Time between crime and identification: 23 days
- Civil indemnity: PHP 75,000.00
- Moral damages: PHP 75,000.00
- Exemplary damages: PHP 75,000.00
- Actual damages: PHP 27,500.00
- Interest: 6% per annum from finality until fully paid
- G.R. No. 271191
The Court's Reasoning
The Court noted that Malasa was beside Morota when Morota was shot. While his back was turned when the first shot was fired, he faced Morota and accused-appellant when accused-appellant shot Morota for a second time. Malasa was also a mere arm's length from accused-appellant as accused-appellant searched Malasa's body for cash. During this time, Morota had a direct view of accused-appellant's face under the lights outside the restaurant. Malasa noted then accused-appellant's distinct squint eye.
The Court found there was no police report where Malasa gave a description of the assailant, but neither was there a record of him being asked to describe the assailant nor stating he could not recall. Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals accorded credibility to Malasa's testimony due to the level of certainty he demonstrated. The intervening period of 23 days was acceptable, the Court noting it has previously ruled that 26 days is acceptable.
On suggestiveness, the Court said that while the police, not the victim's widow, should have presented the pictures, she nevertheless presented several photographs and not just that of accused-appellant. Citing People v. Sabangan, the Court noted that a subsequent in-court identification may cure an out-of-court identification tainted with irregularity. Malasa's testimony was also supported by physical evidence: Morota was shot twice, consistent with the medico-legal findings, and the bullets recovered from his head wounds were fired from a weapon issued to accused-appellant and in his possession at the time of the incident.
This report is based on the Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 271191.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.