People vs. Lara

An objection to a warrantless arrest is deemed waived if not raised in a motion to quash before entering a plea, and the right to counsel does not attach during a police line-up because it is not part of custodial investigation.

On May 31, 2001, Enrique Sumulong withdrew ₱230,000.00 from a Metrobank branch in Pasig City to defray employee salaries. While riding a pick-up truck with companions Virgilio Manacob, Jeff Atie, and Joselito Bautista, Sumulong placed the money in a black bag. At around 10:30 AM, at the intersection of Mercedes and Market Avenues, Arturo Lara suddenly appeared at the front passenger side, pointed a gun at Sumulong, and demanded the bag. Bautista, seated at the back, shouted not to surrender the money, prompting Sumulong to throw the bag toward Bautista. Bautista alighted with the bag and fled, but Lara pursued him while firing his gun. Bautista sustained fatal gunshot wounds, and the bag of money was taken. On June 7, 2001, Sumulong spotted Lara walking along Dr. Pilapil Street and alerted the police, leading to Lara's arrest and identification in a police line-up.

• The Incident: On May 31, 2001, at approximately 10:30 AM, Sumulong and three companions were in a pick-up truck at the intersection of Mercedes and Market Avenues, Pasig City, transporting ₱230,000.00 in a black bag. Lara appeared at the front passenger side, pointed a gun at Sumulong, and demanded the bag. Upon Bautista's urging, Sumulong threw the bag to Bautista. Bautista alighted and ran, but Lara chased him, firing multiple shots. Bautista sustained fatal gunshot wounds, and the money was taken. Eleven empty shells and six deformed slugs of a 9mm pistol were recovered from the scene.
• The Arrest and Identification: On June 7, 2001, Sumulong saw Lara walking along Dr. Pilapil Street and alerted the police. Lara was invited for questioning and subsequently placed in a police line-up, where Sumulong, Atie, and Manacob positively identified him as the perpetrator.
• The Defense: Lara claimed alibi, testifying that he was at his house on Dr. Pilapil Street digging a sewer trench from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM on the day of the incident. He alleged that during the line-up, a police officer told the witnesses, "Ituru nyo na yan at uuwi na tayo," suggesting the identification was coached. His sister and a neighbor corroborated his alibi. He admitted his house was only about three minutes away from the crime scene.

• Warrantless Arrest: Lara argued that his arrest without a warrant, under circumstances not justifying a warrantless arrest, rendered void all subsequent proceedings leading to his conviction.
• Right to Counsel: Lara maintained that being placed in a police line-up without the assistance of counsel violated Section 12, Article III of the Constitution, as the line-up is part of custodial investigation and his right to counsel had already attached.
• Insufficiency of Evidence: Lara argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting the lack of an eyewitness who actually saw him commit the acts. He claimed Sumulong merely presumed he was the shooter, and that discrepancies in physical descriptions raised the possibility that his unidentified companion committed the acts.
• Credibility of Alibi Witnesses: Lara asserted that the trial court erred in discounting his witnesses, arguing that absent any showing of improper motive, their testimonies should be given credence despite their relationship to him.

• Waiver of Objection to Arrest: The People countered that any objection to a warrantless arrest must be raised in a motion to quash before entering a plea; otherwise, it is deemed waived. An illegal arrest does not void a valid conviction based on sufficient evidence.
• Inapplicability of Right to Counsel: The People argued that a police line-up is not part of custodial investigation, and thus the right to counsel does not attach at that stage. Even if a violation occurred, the conviction was based on witness testimony, not an uncounseled confession.
• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: The People maintained that the prosecution presented sufficient circumstantial evidence constituting an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Weakness of Alibi: The People argued that Lara's alibi must fail because he did not prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, given the proximity of his house.

• Warrantless Arrest: Whether the objection to a warrantless arrest may be raised for the first time on appeal to nullify the conviction.
• Right to Counsel: Whether identification in a police line-up is inadmissible because the accused stood therein without the assistance of counsel.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict the accused of robbery with homicide.
• Alibi: Whether the defense of alibi can exonerate the accused given the positive identification by prosecution witnesses.

• Warrantless Arrest: The objection to the warrantless arrest was deemed waived. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired through voluntary appearance, and any objection to the arrest must be made before entering a plea. Having failed to file a motion to quash based on illegal arrest before arraignment, Lara submitted to the court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, an illegal arrest does not reverse a conviction arrived at upon a valid complaint and a trial free from error.
• Right to Counsel: The right to counsel does not attach during a police line-up because it is not part of custodial investigation. Custodial investigation begins when police investigation focuses on a particular suspect taken into custody and interrogation is initiated to elicit incriminating statements. During a police line-up, the process has not shifted from investigatory to accusatory, and it is the witness, not the suspect, who is interrogated. Thus, identification made during an uncounseled line-up is admissible.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Conviction based on circumstantial evidence was upheld. Direct evidence is not the only basis for conviction; circumstantial evidence suffices if there is more than one circumstance, the facts are proven, and the combination produces moral certainty. The established circumstances—Lara appearing armed, demanding the bag, chasing Bautista, firing the gun, and the subsequent recovery of shells and the victim's blood—constituted an unbroken chain consistent with the hypothesis of guilt to the exclusion of all other hypotheses.
• Alibi: The defense of alibi was rejected. Positive identification prevails over alibi, which is inherently weak and easy to concoct. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only presence elsewhere but also physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Lara's house was only a few minutes away from the locus criminis, negating physical impossibility.

• Waiver of Objection to Illegal Arrest — Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before entering a plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Submitting to the court's jurisdiction by pleading and participating in the trial precludes the accused from invoking irregularities attending the arrest. The illegal arrest is not a ground to set aside a valid judgment rendered upon sufficient evidence.
• Right to Counsel in Police Line-ups — The right to be assisted by counsel attaches only during custodial investigation and cannot be claimed during identification in a police line-up. A police line-up is not part of custodial investigation because the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory stage, and it is usually the witness who is interrogated.
• Circumstantial Evidence for Conviction — Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence suffices for conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The established circumstances must constitute an unbroken chain consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, to the exclusion of all other hypotheses.
• Requisites of Alibi — To prosper, the defense of alibi must demonstrate: (a) the accused was present at another place at the time of the crime; and (b) it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance and facility of access between the two places. Positive identification, when categorical and consistent without ill motive, prevails over denial and alibi.

• "Police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage. x x x The right to be assisted by counsel attaches only during custodial investigation and cannot be claimed by the accused during identification in a police line-up because it is not part of the custodial investigation process. This is because during a police line-up, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory and it is usually the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement in the course of the line-up."
• "Even in the absence of direct evidence, conviction can be had if the established circumstances constitute an unbroken chain, consistent with each other and to the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, to the exclusion of all other hypothesis that he is not."
• "In cases of robbery with homicide, the taking of personal property with intent to gain must itself be established beyond reasonable doubt. Conclusive evidence proving the physical act of asportation by the accused must be presented by the prosecution. It must be shown that the original criminal design of the culprit was robbery and the homicide was perpetrated with a view to the consummation of the robbery by reason or on the occasion of the robbery."

• People v. Amestuzo, 413 Phil. 500 (2001) — Followed. The right to counsel cannot be invoked during a police line-up because it is not part of custodial investigation.
• People v. Pascual, Jr., 432 Phil. 224 (2002) — Followed. Conviction can be had based on circumstantial evidence forming an unbroken chain.
• People v. Geron, 346 Phil. 14 (1997) — Followed. In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design must be robbery, and the homicide perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.
• People v. Ayangao, 471 Phil. 379 (2004) — Followed. Objection to an illegal arrest must be made before entering a plea; otherwise, it is deemed waived.
• Rebellion v. People, G.R. No. 175700, July 5, 2010 — Followed. Illegal arrest is not a sufficient ground to reverse a conviction arrived at upon a valid complaint and a trial free from error.

• Section 9, Rule 117, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Governs the failure to move to quash or allege any ground therefor. The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before pleading to the complaint or information shall be deemed a waiver of any objections, except those based on specific enumerated grounds. Applied to hold that Lara waived his objection to the warrantless arrest.
• Section 12(1), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right to counsel during custodial investigation. Applied to rule that this right does not attach during a police line-up, as it is not part of custodial investigation.
• Section 4, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court — Prescribes the requisites for circumstantial evidence to suffice for conviction. Applied to uphold the conviction based on the concurring circumstances proving Lara's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659 — Defines and penalizes the crime of robbery with homicide. Applied as the substantive basis for Lara's conviction and sentence of reclusion perpetua.

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Villarama, Jr., Perez