View full case

PEOPLE v. RUFINO GAMER Y MALIT

FACTS:

The case involves the appeal of a convicted appellant for the crime of carnapping. The incident occurred on September 25, 1989, in Villa Emilia Subdivision, Paralaya, Porac, Pampanga. Antonio Loremas and his wife, Corazon Nazal Loremas, were driving home when two men announced a hold-up. One of the men shot Antonio, causing the jeep to stop. The assailants took the couple's money, clothing, jewelries, cigarettes, car stereo and equalizer, and tools, and drove off with the jeep. Antonio died from the gunshot wound later that night, and the jeep was found abandoned the next day.

Police investigations did not make any progress, so Corazon sought the help of the Chief of the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS), Angeles City. The CIS conducted intelligence gathering operations and eventually "invited" the appellant for questioning at the CIS Field Office. The appellant and his son were picked up by CIS agents, investigated, and made to sign sworn statements. The following day, the appellant was brought before a public prosecutor for inquest, where a prima facie case was found against him and another person. The other person was later dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The appellant pleaded not guilty during arraignment, and trial ensued. Private complainant Corazon Loremas identified the appellant as one of the carnappers, and several witnesses testified for the prosecution. The appellant vehemently denied involvement and claimed that he was coerced into signing a sworn statement. Defense witnesses testified to the appellant's alibi and the alleged torture he experienced while under custody.

On April 8, 1994, the trial court found the appellant guilty as charged.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court deprived the accused of his substantial right to due process by admitting evidence that pointed to his identity in an alleged police line-up without affording him his constitutional rights and guarantees.

  2. Whether the trial court failed to consider certain aspects of evidence by the accused that could have substantially affected or changed the conclusion rendered in the case.

  3. Whether the trial court acted in grave abuse of discretion by focusing only on justifying the prosecution's evidence and disregarding some significant facts that may be important to the accused's chance of acquittal.

  4. Whether the out-of-court identification of the appellant is admissible and credible.

  5. Whether the in-court identification of the appellant is reliable.

  6. Whether the identification of the appellant as one of the assailants is positive and credible.

  7. Whether the defense of alibi raised by the appellant is strong and supported by clear and convincing evidence.

  8. Whether the evidence against the appellant is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

  1. The Court holds that the evidence obtained through the arrest and custodial investigation of the accused is inadmissible. The accused was arrested without a warrant and his arrest cannot be justified under any circumstances allowing warrantless arrests. The sworn statement taken from the accused during custodial investigation is also inadmissible. The Court also finds that the identification of the accused made by the prosecution witnesses during the trial is largely dependent on an out-of-court identification made during an alleged police line-up which the accused and another witness both denied. Therefore, the identification evidence is questionable.

  2. The Court held that the out-of-court identification of the appellant is unreliable and tainted by the police line-up procedure. The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the lapse of time between the crime and the arrest of the appellant cast doubt on the authenticity and accuracy of the descriptions given. The in-court identification of the appellant cannot be considered positive and credible, and the evidence against him is weak. Thus, the defense of alibi gains considerable strength, and the appellant is entitled to an acquittal due to insufficiency of evidence.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The right against unreasonable seizure and the rights under custodial investigation are constitutional guarantees that must be observed.

  • Evidence obtained in violation of a person's rights under custodial investigation is inadmissible in any proceeding.

  • A line-up identification must be conducted in accordance with the totality of circumstances test to ensure its admissibility.

  • The totality test must be applied to ensure fairness and compliance with constitutional requirements of due process in out-of-court identifications.

  • Positive identification made by a credible witness or witnesses is necessary to sustain moral certainty concerning the identity of the offender.

  • The literal signification of the word "alibi" is "elsewhere," and for alibi to prosper, the requisites of time and place must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

  • The overriding consideration in a criminal case is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused, but whether it entertains reasonable doubt as to his guilt.