CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JERRY PEPINO and PRECIOSA GOMEZ. G.R. No. 174471. January 12, 2016

FACTS:

Edward Tan was abducted by two men and a woman, who pretended as customers in his office at Kilton Motors Corporation in Paranaque. Edward was brought to an apartment in Quezon City. The abductors demanded 4 Million ransom, but later on agreed with P7000,000. Edward was released after 4 days of detention upon delivery of the ransom money. 

After his detention, Edward reported his kidnapping with Teresita Ang See, a known anti-crime crusader. After 5 months, NBI informed Edward that they have apprehended some suspects and invited him and his wife from a line-up consisting of seven persons: five males and two females. The spouses positively identified Pepino. Gomez and one Mario Malgo was also identified by Edward. 

During the trial, the suspects were again identified by Edward and his wife as the perpetrators of the crime. RTC of Paranaque then, convicted Pepino and Gomez of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal detention and sentenced them to suffer the death penalty. Malgo was acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence.

Respondents on Appeal assail the validity of their arrests and the subsequent police line-up that were allegedly conducted without observance of their Miranda Rights and Arrest Warrant. They claimed that they were already exposed in the media as suspects before the said line-up was made. Further, they also argued that their identification during trial as the perpetrators of the crime are pre-conditioned by the suggestive identification made during the police line-up.

ISSUE:

Whether the out of court (police line-up) identification conducted by NBI is invalid and suggestive that warrants its inadmissibility in court.

RULING:

No. There are various ways of conducting out of court identification. One of these ways is through Police line-up  where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for that purpose. In resolving the admissibility of any out of court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors:

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.

Applying this test to the present case, the court find that the police line-up identification conducted was reliable and thus admissible. Edward has ample opportunity to view the criminals from the moment they pretended as customers, during the kidnapping when Pepino pointed a gun at Edward, and at the time of the latter's detention. The facts also show that there was no distraction that occurs during the kidnapping event that would likely draw the spouses' attention. As to the accuracy of any prior description and the level of certainty, settled is a rule that the natural reaction of victims of criminal violence is to strive to see the appearance of the assailants and observe the manner the crime was committed. The intervening time between the commission of the crime and the identification is not that long. It took only 5 months for the police to present the suspects to the witnesses for their identification. There was also no evidence to prove that the police had supplied or even suggested to Edward and his wife that the respondents were  the suspected perpetrators.

Another thing that would invalidate the line-up procedure conducted by the police, as claimed by the respondents is that they were denied the Miranda Rights, one of which is the right to counsel or to be assisted by counsel during custodial investigation. 

As the court held, Custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into the custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of the crime under investigation. Police line-up, as a rule, is not part of the custodial investigation. Thus, the right to counsel is not yet available or cannot be invoked.

In the police line-up conducted in this case, the suspects are not yet singled out as the perpetrators as they were presented to the witnesses together with other persons as suspects.

As to the irregularity of the police line-up due to the suspects' media exposure before the line-up was conducted, it may be considered as flaw, but objection to that irregularity was waived when the respondent entered their pleas. Further, the in court identification during trial of the case also cured the irregularity that happened in an out of court identification.