MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) Third Division has acquitted a man previously convicted of Robbery with Homicide in a 2009 ambush of Philippine National Police (PNP) personnel, ruling that his identification as the perpetrator was “unduly suggestive” and failed to meet the “totality of circumstances” test. In a Decision promulgated on July 7, 2025, and penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings and ordered the immediate release of Marlon Malacaman based on reasonable doubt.
The case originated from a high-profile heist on April 22, 2009, in Calamba City, Laguna. Two PNP officers, Police Senior Inspector Ludivina Ginauli and Senior Police Officer 1 Michael Barnuevo, were ambushed after withdrawing PHP 2,299,152.00 from a bank for police clothing allowances. The attackers opened fire on their vehicle, killing Ginauli and severely wounding Barnuevo. The stolen cash was scattered in the street after the getaway motorcycle crashed, leading to a chaotic scene where bystanders picked up the money.
Malacaman was identified as one of the shooters by Barnuevo and another eyewitness, Christopher Secillano, primarily through a “rogues’ gallery” at the police precinct and subsequent in-court identification. While the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found this evidence sufficient for a conviction, the Supreme Court held that the identification process was fatally flawed.
The Court applied the totality of circumstances test, which evaluates the reliability of out-of-court identifications based on six criteria: the witness’s opportunity to view the criminal, the degree of attention, the accuracy of prior descriptions, the level of certainty, the time elapsed, and the suggestiveness of the procedure.
The SC found that SPO1 Barnuevo had limited opportunity to recognize the assailants because he was distracted by a text message and immediately incapacitated by four gunshot wounds, including one to the head. Furthermore, the Court noted that neither witness provided a prior description of the suspects before being shown the police photographs. Most critically, the Court found the procedure “unduly suggestive” after an officer explicitly told an eyewitness that Malacaman was the “suspect” while presenting the rogues’ gallery.
“Identification testimony is but a product of flawed human memory,” the Court observed, citing studies showing that flawed eyewitness identification is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. The ruling emphasized that the human mind is highly susceptible to suggestion, particularly when police procedures increase the likelihood of misidentification.
In a final note, the Supreme Court called upon law enforcement agencies to formally codify out-of-court identification procedures in the PNP Manual of Operational Procedures. The Court pointed out that despite the passage of 15 years since the crime, formal guidelines remain absent, often leading to avoidable lapses that compromise the search for truth.
With the reversal of the conviction, Malacaman was ordered immediately released from detention unless held for another lawful cause. The ruling serves as a reminder to prosecutors and police that the identification of an accused is a pillar of criminal prosecution that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
