People vs. Lapura

A defective or absent certification by the investigating fiscal does not invalidate an information, and an uncounseled police line-up identification does not necessarily bar an independent in-court identification.

Petronilo Lim was a special agent of the Criminal Investigation Service. Dionisio Lapura y Cajan was a combo drummer. The Rules of Court required an investigating fiscal to certify compliance with preliminary investigation requirements and to obtain prior written authority from the city or provincial fiscal before filing an information, while the Constitution protected an accused’s right to counsel during custodial investigation.

On the morning of 19 February 1988, Petronilo Lim, a 55-year-old special agent of the Criminal Investigation Service, was riding in his car with his sister along Honorio Lopez Boulevard, Balut, Tondo, Manila. At approximately 7:30 a.m., just as he started slowing down before turning left to Infanta Street, two persons suddenly came forward and fired at him. Edgardo Samson, a 27-year-old bicycle maker working for Teen’s Bicycle Enterprises at Honorio Lopez Boulevard, was about ten meters away. Turning his head toward the gunshots, he saw two persons—a hunchback positioned at the front right side of the car and another at the left side of the vehicle. The victim, now bloodied, got out of the car and fired back using his “baby” armalite. A person wearing a white undershirt, maong pants, and white shoes grabbed the armalite, but Ambet Zabala grappled for its possession, recovered it, and turned it over to Amang Manalo. The man in maong pants fled toward nearby San Rafael Village.

Dionisio Lapura y Cajan, a 32-year-old combo drummer, was arrested by police officers in the afternoon of 25 February 1988 at the house of a fellow musician, Danilo Cabrera, in Mata Street, Divisoria, Manila. Lapura and Cabrera, along with another musician friend, Reynaldo Eliezer, were brought to Station 1 at North Bay, Tondo, Manila, where statements were taken. They were later brought inside the office of Col. Maganto, where appellant was informed that he was a suspect in the killing of Petronilo Lim because he resembled the cartograph of the killer. Cabrera added that they were watching television when the arresting policemen suddenly entered their house shouting, “You are NPA’s, no one must move.” On 26 February 1988, Samson executed a sworn statement before Senior Investigation Agent Jesus Cañizares and Sgt. Feliciano Garcia at the Special Investigation Unit, Criminal Investigation Service Command, Camp Crame, Quezon City. Later that day, he identified appellant in a police line-up as the person positioned at the left side of the victim’s car who fired a .45 caliber pistol at the victim, and he executed another statement to that effect before Cañizares.

The victim, 55-year-old Petronilo Lim, died of three gunshot wounds: two at the left anterior lumbar area, which lacerated the small intestine, liver, kidney, and ascending colon, and one “thru and thru” at the left thigh. Dr. Marcial Ceñido, who conducted the autopsy, testified that the victim must have been fired at while his body was inclined toward the right and that, because there was “tattooing” on his left posterior forearm, the muzzle of the gun must have been pointed at close range.

The defense interposed alibi. Appellant testified that at the time of the shooting he was sleeping at his sister’s house at 1039 Int. 17, P. Vargas St., Tondo, Manila. He woke up late that day because he had performed the night before at the North Mall in Caloocan City. His sister, Adelaida Lapura Cuison, corroborated his alibi: when she left the house at about 6:30 a.m. on 19 February 1988, her brother was still sleeping in their living room; when she returned about thirty minutes later, he was still asleep; and he did not wake up until around ten o’clock that morning.

The information dated 01 March 1988 charged appellant with murder, alleging conspiracy, evident premeditation, and treachery, and that he shot Petronilo Lim several times with a .45 caliber pistol, hitting him on the left anterior lumbar and left thigh. After evaluating the evidence, the RTC gave credence to the prosecution’s case, particularly Samson’s eyewitness account, and found Samson credible despite the claimed contradictions; it also found no evil motive on his part.

• Validity of the Information — Prior Authority: Appellant argued that the trial court should have outrightly dismissed the case because the information was filed without the written authority of the city fiscal or prosecutor.
• Validity of the Information — Defective Certification: Appellant argued that the investigating fiscal’s certification was defective because it was not under oath, did not state that a preliminary investigation under Section 3, Rule 112, of the Rules of Court was conducted, and did not state that the accused was informed of the complaint and given an opportunity to present controverting evidence.
• Credibility of Eyewitness: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in believing Samson’s testimony despite supposed contradictions and inconsistencies.
• Right to Counsel at Police Line-Up: Appellant argued that he was not provided the assistance of counsel at the police line-up.
• Application of People vs. Opida: Appellant argued that People vs. Opida should apply because his constitutional rights were grossly violated from his warrantless arrest on 25 February 1988 and detention at WPD Station, Tondo, Manila, to the filing of the information on 2 March 1988; he invoked deprivation of rights against unreasonable search and seizure, arbitrary or unlawful arrest, the right to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed, the right to preliminary investigation, and the right to a valid information within the period implied in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Proof of Motive: Appellant alleged that proof of motive was necessary and had not been established.

• Inapplicability of People vs. Opida: Respondent argued that People vs. Opida is predicated on the trial judge’s palpable partiality and irregular manner of interrogating the accused and their witness, and on the admission of an extrajudicial confession despite strong evidence of manhandling by the police; these circumstances do not obtain in this case.

• Validity of the Information — Prior Authority: Whether the information should be dismissed because it was filed without the prior written authority of the city fiscal or prosecutor.
• Validity of the Information — Certification: Whether the investigating fiscal’s certification was defective for not being under oath, for failing to state that a preliminary investigation was conducted, and for failing to state that the accused was informed of the complaint and given an opportunity to present controverting evidence.
• Credibility of Eyewitness: Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to Edgardo Samson’s testimony despite alleged contradictions and inconsistencies.
• Right to Counsel at Police Line-Up: Whether appellant was denied the assistance of counsel at the police line-up and whether Samson’s in-court identification was admissible.
• Application of People vs. Opida: Whether People vs. Opida applies on account of the alleged warrantless arrest, detention, and deprivation of constitutional rights, including the right to preliminary investigation and to a valid information within the period in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Waiver of Arrest and Preliminary Investigation Objections: Whether appellant waived objections to the warrantless arrest and preliminary investigation by filing a petition for bail, entering a plea of not guilty, and submitting to the proceedings.
• Proof of Motive: Whether proof of motive was necessary to sustain the conviction.
• Treachery and Evident Premeditation: Whether treachery was correctly appreciated and whether evident premeditation was established.

• Validity of the Information — Prior Authority: No. The information was not invalid; the investigating fiscal certified that its filing was with the prior authority and approval of the City Fiscal, and the presumption of regularity stood absent convincing contrary evidence.
• Validity of the Information — Certification: No. The certification is not an indispensable part of the information, and its absence or defective clauses cannot invalidate the information.
• Credibility of Eyewitness: No. Samson’s testimony was credible; he identified appellant in his sworn statements and in open court, withstood cross-examination, and had no shown evil motive to testify falsely.
• Right to Counsel at Police Line-Up: No. Atty. Orlando Salatandre was present in the investigation room, and in any event an uncounseled police line-up identification does not necessarily foreclose an independent in-court identification, which Samson made.
• Application of People vs. Opida: No. Opida rested on the trial judge’s palpable partiality and the admission of an extrajudicial confession despite strong evidence of manhandling, circumstances absent here.
• Waiver of Arrest and Preliminary Investigation Objections: Yes. Filing a petition for bail waived the irregular warrantless arrest, and entering a plea of not guilty and submitting to the proceedings waived the right to preliminary investigation and objections to it.
• Proof of Motive: No. Proof of motive is not crucial where the identity of the accused has been amply established.
• Treachery and Evident Premeditation: Yes, treachery attended because the attack was sudden and without warning; evident premeditation was not established.

• Validity of the Information — Prior Authority: The SC noted that the sufficiency of the allegations under Section 6, Rule 110, was not questioned; the attack centered on the failure to obtain prior written authority under Section 4, Rule 112. The certification stated that an ex-parte investigation was conducted in accordance with law, that there was reasonable ground to believe the offense was committed, that the accused was probably guilty, and that the filing was with the prior authority and approval of the City Fiscal. Absent convincing evidence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions had to be upheld. Moreover, the matter should have been raised in a motion to quash under Section 3(c), Rule 117, which appellant did not do.

• Validity of the Information — Certification: The SC reiterated that the certification is not an indispensable part of, and its absence cannot invalidate, an information. People vs. Marquez explained that an information is an accusation in writing subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court; the certification is not essential, and the Rule 112 injunction refers to the non-holding of a preliminary investigation, not the absence of the certification. Pecho vs. Sandiganbayan held that if absence does not invalidate, a defective certification with missing clauses can do no worse. The question of whether a preliminary investigation was properly conducted should be interposed before arraignment; appellant did not show he did so before pleading not guilty.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: The SC found no validity to the claim of contradictions. In his first sworn statement, Samson identified three perpetrators: a hunchback at the front right side of the car, a long-haired, mustached man at the left side, and a thin, brown man who grabbed the armalite. In his second sworn statement, Samson pointed to appellant in a police line-up as the mustached man in white T-shirt and maong pants, second to his left, and said appellant was the one who fired from the left side of the car. On the witness stand, although visibly shaken and under vigorous and dramatic cross-examination, Samson stood by his statement. No evil motive was shown, and the trial court’s favorable evaluation of his credibility was not to be ignored.

• Right to Counsel at Police Line-Up: Appellant contended he had no counsel at the police line-up. Upon arrest, Lapura refused to make any statement. During the investigation, his counsel, Atty. Orlando Salatandre, was in the investigation room, a fact the defense itself elicited from Agent Cañizares on cross-examination. It was therefore wrong to conclude that Atty. Salatandre could not provide legal assistance. Moreover, the inadmissibility of a police line-up identification of an uncounseled accused should not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent in-court identification. Samson, in open court, pointed to appellant and identified him as the person in white T-shirt, pants, and shoes who ran toward him and the bridge after shooting Lim.

• Application of People vs. Opida: The SC agreed with the Solicitor General that People vs. Opida rested on two vital premises: the trial judge’s palpable partiality and irregular manner of interrogating the accused and their witness, and the admission of an extrajudicial confession despite strong evidence of manhandling by the police. These circumstances did not obtain. The trial judge did propound questions to witnesses, but they were mainly clarificatory and not adversarial. Opida was therefore not applicable.

• Waiver of Arrest and Preliminary Investigation Objections: As to the warrantless arrest, appellant waived any irregularity by filing a petition for bail, following People vs. Abapo. By his application for bail, plea of not guilty, and submission to the proceedings below, appellant was deemed to have foregone his right to preliminary investigation and to question any irregularity that might have attended it, following People vs. Nitcha.

• Proof of Motive: Proof of motive, contrary to appellant’s allegation, is not crucial where the identity of the accused has been amply established, as in this case, following People vs. Flores.

• Treachery and Evident Premeditation: The trial court correctly appreciated treachery because the attack was perpetrated suddenly and without warning of any kind, following People vs. Adonis. Evident premeditation, although alleged in the information, was not established. Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribed reclusion temporal maximum to death, was its medium period of reclusion perpetua under Article 64(1).

• Certification of Investigating Fiscal — The investigating fiscal’s certification is not an indispensable part of an information, and its absence or defective clauses cannot invalidate the information. The SC applied this despite appellant’s claim that the certification was not under oath and omitted required statements.
• Prior Written Authority of the City or Provincial Fiscal — Rule 112, Section 4, requires prior written authority or approval before an information is filed. A challenge to its absence should be raised in a motion to quash; the certification attested prior authority, and the presumption of regularity was upheld.
• Preliminary Investigation Objection — An objection to the conduct or regularity of a preliminary investigation must be raised before arraignment. The SC found appellant did not raise it before pleading not guilty.
• Right to Counsel at Police Line-Up — The inadmissibility of a police line-up identification of an uncounseled accused does not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent in-court identification. The SC found counsel present and Samson’s in-court identification independent.
• Waiver of Irregular Arrest by Bail — Filing a petition for bail waives any objection to an irregular warrantless arrest. The SC applied this to appellant’s claim of warrantless arrest.
• Motive in Identification Cases — Proof of motive is not crucial where the identity of the accused has been amply established. The SC applied this because Samson identified appellant.
• Treachery — Treachery attends when the attack is sudden and without warning, leaving the victim unable to defend himself. The SC applied this to the shooting.
• Evident Premeditation — Evident premeditation must be established, not merely alleged. The SC found it was not established despite its allegation in the information.

• “Absent convincing evidence to the contrary, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions has to be upheld.” — The SC used this to uphold the investigating fiscal’s certification that the information was filed with the City Fiscal’s prior authority.
• “such certification is not an indispensable part of, let alone invalidate even by its absence, an information.” — The SC reiterated the settled rule that a defective or absent certification does not invalidate an information.
• “the inadmissibility of a police line-up identification of an uncounseled accused should not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent in-court identification.” — The SC used this to reject appellant’s counsel claim and to uphold Samson’s in-court identification.
• “Proof of motive, contrary to appellant’s allegation, is not crucial where the identity of the accused, such as here, has been amply established.” — The SC rejected appellant’s motive argument because identity was established.

• People vs. Marquez, 27 SCRA 808 — Controlling precedent; held that the certification is not an essential part of the information and its absence cannot vitiate it.
• Pecho vs. Sandiganbayan, 238 SCRA 116 — Followed; held that a defective certification can do no worse than its absence.
• People vs. Monteverde, 142 SCRA 668 — Cited; held that the question of a properly conducted preliminary investigation should be interposed before arraignment.
• People vs. Opida, 142 SCRA 295 — Distinguished; its exoneration rested on the trial judge’s palpable partiality and the admission of an extrajudicial confession despite strong evidence of manhandling, absent here.
• People vs. Abapo, 239 SCRA 373 — Followed; held that filing a petition for bail waives any irregularity in the warrantless arrest.
• People vs. Nitcha, 240 SCRA 283 — Followed; held that a plea of not guilty and submission to the proceedings waive the right to preliminary investigation.
• People vs. Flores, 237 SCRA 653 — Followed; held that proof of motive is not crucial where the identity of the accused is amply established.
• People vs. Adonis, 240 SCRA 773 — Followed; held that treachery attends when the attack is sudden and without warning.

• Rule 110, Section 6, Rules of Court — Defines the sufficiency of a complaint or information. The SC noted that the sufficiency of the allegations was not questioned.
• Rule 112, Section 4, Rules of Court — Requires the investigating fiscal to certify under oath and to obtain prior written authority or approval before filing an information. The SC held that the certification is not indispensable and that the prior authority was attested; defects did not invalidate the information.
• Rule 117, Section 3(c), Rules of Court — Provides for a motion to quash. The SC held that the issue of lack of prior written authority should have been raised in such a motion.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for murder, reclusion temporal maximum to death. The SC applied it and imposed the medium period.
• Article 64(1), Revised Penal Code — Requires imposition of the medium period when there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The SC applied it to impose reclusion perpetua.
• Constitution — Right to Counsel During Custodial Investigation — The SC addressed appellant’s claim by finding that Atty. Salatandre was present during the investigation and that Samson’s in-court identification was independent of the police line-up.