Carl Arnaiz case: Cabbie gave 2 statements to police
Carl Angelo Arnaiz (Photo from his Facebook account)
Published: 7:20 p.m., Sept. 4, 2017 | Updated: 2:12 a.m., Sept. 5, 2017
Taxi driver Tomas Bagcal, 54, gave two different locations where Carl Angelo Arnaiz, 19-year-old former student of the University of the Philippines, allegedly robbed him on Aug. 18.
This was based on two statements that he gave the Caloocan police on Aug. 18, immediately after the robbery, and on Aug. 29, a day after Eva Arnaiz, the teenager’s mother, identified her son as the one killed by police officers.
READ: PAO autopsy: Carl Angelo Arnaiz was shot 5 times – 3 in the
In the first affidavit, Bagcal said his Carl, his passenger, declared a holdup as they reached the barangay hall of Barangay 28.
In the second affidavit, he said the passenger declared a holdup along C-3 road.
Bagcal’s first affidavit is composed of two pages. The driver answered 18 questions asked by homicide investigator PO2 Rodolfo Bautista inside the Caloocan City Police Station.
In the first affidavit, there was no description of the robber. Bagcal simply answered “no” when asked if he knew who held him up.
Bautista: “Nakilala mo ba kung sino ang nanghold up sayo?”
Bagcal: “Hindi po.”
In the second affidavit, given 10 days after the crime, Bagcal provided specific descriptions of the robber who took his wallet.
Bautista: “Nakilala mo ba kung sino ang nangholdup sayo?”
Bagcal: “Hindi po, namukaan ko lang po siya, noong mga panahong iyon, naka itim na sweat shirt na may hood, itim na sombrero, blue na maong short pants, naka tsinelas at may dalang bag.”
According to Bagcal, he went to the police station on Aug. 29 because he was “invited again” to “shed light” on the case.
“Muli po kasi akong inimbitahan para magbigay ng aking nalalaman sa nangyari paghold-up sa akin at kalaunang pagkapatay ng holdupper at liwanagin ang ilang mga detalye,” Bagcal said.
The second affidavit is composed of three pages.
This time, Bagcal answered Bautista’s 24 questions.
Bagcal also clarified and emphasized the following information:
1. The number of suspects
In the first affidavit, Bagcal mentioned the words “mga suspect.” In the second affidavit, he emphasized that there was “only one suspect.”
2. The description of the robber
3. The location and time where he was robbed
4. Which part of his body was hit by the robber
In the first affidavit, Bagcal said he was hit in the arm. In the second affidavit, Bagcal said he was hit in the hand. To show proof, Bagcal stated that a certain PO1 Ellamil accompanied him to Caloocan Medical Center for a medical exam.
In the second affidavit, Bagcal also detailed how he joined the supposed chase and how sure he was that the cops got the right target.
Bautista asked: “Paano mo nalaman o narinig na hinabol at naabutan ng mga pulis yong suspect.”
Bagcal replied: “Pagkwento ko po ng nangyari, naghiwahiwalay na po sila para mahuli yung suspek pero sumunod parin po ako sa nag co-counter flow na motor, ginamit ko po yung taxi ko.”
Bautista: “Paano naka sigurado yung mga pulis na ang hinabol nila yung suspek na nangholdup sayo?”
Bagcal: “Habang naka sunod po ako sa kanila nakita po namin yung suspek tapos huminto po kami sa gater (sic) tapos dun ko na po sinabi na ‘sir yun yung nangholdap sa kin’.”
In both affidavits, Bagcal said he was 150 meters away from where the shootout took place.
But in the second affidavit, Bagcal specified his location during the shootout. He said he was hiding behind n electric post during the exchange of fire. When it was over , the cops called him to show him the body lying on the ground.
Bautista: “Nang matapos na yung barilan mga pulis at holduper may napansin ka ba sa mga pulis or hold-uper?”
Bagcal: “Nakita ko nalang na nakahiga na yung holdaper tapos lumapit yong dalawang pulis para tingnan kung buhay pa tapos sinipa nung isa yung baril ng holdaper.”
/atm
