By Joseph Almer Pedrajas
The mother of Carl Angelo Arnaiz belied the accusation that her son robbed a taxi driver before he was killed.
Carlito and Eva, parents of Carl Angelo Arnaiz, together with his sister, Camille weep during the mass at the Mater Dolorosa in West Rembo, Makati before his burial, Tuesday afternoon.
(CAMILLE ANTE / MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
Carl, a former University of the Philippines (UP) student, died after he was shot allegedly by police officers Jeffrey Perez and Ricky Arquilita in Caloocan City on August 18, 2017.
The two policemen said that they were chasing Carl when they were prompted to retaliate after he reportedly “resisted arrest" and "fired shots at them."
In their latest hearing at the Navotas City Regional Trial Court (RTC) on Monday, Eva denied that Carl was a robber.
She said it was impossible that her son would still rob a taxi driver because he was already making his own money from his sari-sari store.
Carl, she added, was also receiving a "regular monthly allowance" from her when she was still working abroad.
“May sarili syang negosyo. Kaya ‘di nya makagagawa ang ganyang bagay ,” she said between sobs.
“Wala siyang bisyo. Hindi siya nasangkot sa anumang gulo mula bata,” she added.
“Napalaking tao ni Bagcal. imposible na nakaya sya ng anak ko,” Eva said.
Meanwhile, prosecutor Xerxes Garcia expressed doubts over the inconsistent statements of Tomas Bagcal, the taxi driver who claimed to be robbed by Carl.
In Bagcal’s sworn statements dated Aug. 18 and 29, 2017, he claimed that he was robbed near the Barangay Hall of Barangay 28 in Caloocan City. However, he later said that the incident happened along C3 road.
Also, on his first statement, Bagcal said that he could not identify the suspects. However, on his second statement, he was finally able to describe them.
Garcia added that Bagcal claimed on his first statement that the police ran after two suspects. But on his second statement, he said, there was only one.