Admissibility of Identification; lineups; mug shots

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JERRY PEPINO y RUERAS and PRECIOSA GOMEZ y CAMPOS, Accused-Appellants. EN BANC, G.R. No. 174471, January 12, 2016.

“x x x.

b. Admissibility of Identification

We find no merit in Gomez's claim that Edward's identification of her during trial might have been preconditioned by the "suggestive identification" made during the police lineup.

In People v. Teehankee, Jr.,30 the Court explained the procedure for out-of-court identification and the test to determine the admissibility of such identifications in this manner:

Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thru lineups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose x x x In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.31

Applying the totality-of-circumstances test, we find Edward's out-of-court identification to be reliable and thus admissible. To recall, when the three individuals entered Edward's office, they initially pretended to be customers,32 and even asked about the products that were for sale.33 The three had told Edward that they were going to pay, but Pepino "pulled out a gun" instead.34 After Pepino' s companion had taken the money from the cashier's box, the malefactors handcuffed Edward and forced him to go down to the parked car. From this sequence of events, there was thus ample opportunity for Edward - before and after the gun had been pointed at him - to view the faces of the three persons who entered his office. In addition, Edward stated that Pepino had talked to him "[a]t least once a day"35 during the four days that he was detained.

Edward also saw Gomez seated at the front seat of the getaway metallic green Toyota Corolla vehicle. In addition, the abductors removed the tape from Edward's eyes when they arrived at the apartment, and among those whom he saw there was Gomez. According to Edward, he was able to take a good look at the occupants of the car when he was about to be released.

On the part of Jocelyn, she was firm and unyielding in her identification of Pepino as the person who pointed a gun at her husband while going down the stairs, and who brought him outside the premises of Kilton Motors. She maintained that she was very near when Pepino was taking away her husband; and that she could not forget Pepino's face. For accuracy, we quote from the records: x x x.

X x x.



We add that no competing event took place to draw Edward's and Jocelyn's attention from the incident. Nothing in the records shows the presence of any distraction that could have disrupted the witnesses' attention at the time of the incident.37



Jurisprudence holds that the natural reaction of victims of criminal violence is to strive to see the appearance of their assailants and observe the manner the crime was committed. As the Court held in People v. Esoy:38



It is known that the most natural reaction of a witness to a crime is to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrator and to observe the manner in which the offense is perpetrated. Most often the face of the assailant and body movements thereof, create a lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from a witness's memory. Experience dictates that precisely because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before their eyes, eyewitnesses can remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of criminals at any given time.39



While this pronouncement should be applied with great caution, there is no compelling circumstance in this case that would warrant its non-application.



Contrary to what Gomez claimed, the police lineup conducted at the NBI was not suggestive. We note that there were seven people in the lineup; Edward was not compelled to focus his attention on any specific person or persons. While it might have been ideal if there had been more women included in the lineup instead of only two, or if there had been a separate lineup for Pepino and for Gomez, the fact alone that there were five males and two females in the lineup did not render the procedure irregular. There was no evidence that the police had supplied or even suggested to Edward that the appellants were the suspected perpetrators.



X x x.



We are not unaware that the Court, in several instances, has acquitted an accused when the out-of-court identification is fatally flawed. In these cases, however, it had been clearly shown that the identification procedure was suggestive.



In People v. Pineda,42 the Court acquitted Rolando Pineda because the police suggested the identity of the accused by showing only the photographs of Pineda and his co-accused Celso Sison to witnesses Canilo Ferrer and Jimmy Ramos. According to the Court, "there was impermissible suggestion because the photographs were only of appellant and Sison, focusing attention on the two accused."43



Similarly, the Court in People v. Rodrigo44 acquitted appellant Lee Rodrigo since only a lone photograph was shown to the witness at the police station. We thus held that the appellant's in-court identification proceeded from, and was influenced by, impermissible suggestions in the earlier photographic identification.



The lack of a prior description of the kidnappers in the present case should not lead to a conclusion that witnesses' identification was erroneous. The lack of a prior description of the kidnappers was due to the fact that Jocelyn (together with other members of Edward's family), for reasons not made known in the records, opted to negotiate with the kidnappers, instead of immediately seeking police assistance. If members of Edward's family had refused to cooperate with the police, their refusal could have been due to their desire not to compromise Edward's safety.45 In the same manner, Edward, after he was freed, chose to report the matter to Teresita Ang See, and not to the police.



Given these circumstances, the lack of prior description of the malefactors in this case should not in any way taint the identification that Edward and Jocelyn made.



X x x.”