People v. Escordial | G.R.. Nos 138934-35 | 16 January 2002 | Mendoza, J. | Topic: Art III, Sec. 12 [Police Line Up] |
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Anthony Escordial
Recit Ready Summary:
Herein respondent Escordial was accused of raping a certain Michelle Darunday in her boarding house one night. Present with
her at the time of the rape were her roomates Teresa and Erma. Escordial allegedly used to catcall Michelle and call her
beautiful but Michelle would always just ignore him. After the incident, Michelle went with her aunt to report the incident to the
women’s desk. There were 2 witnesses- children Joniega and Esmeralda who claim that they saw Escordial when they were
playing inside a jeepney and when Escordial jumped over the fence of the boarding house. Escordial is a worker in café
Coffee Break Corner, just 2 houses away from the boarding house. Investigations were commenced. In Bacolod police
station, the 2 roomates Erma and Teresa and also the 2 children Joniega and Esmeralda, were asked whether the
man was the same person they saw on the night of the incident. They were taken one by one to the jail cell and were
asked to point to the person. They all picked the man.
The RTC found him guilty, hence this present petition.
The issue before the court is W/N Escordial’s identification via police line-up admissible as evidence against him to
which the Court ruled NO.
From the time of arrest of Escordial, he was NEVER ASSISTED by counsel, whether of his own choice or provided by police
officers from the time of his arrest in Negros Occidental to the time of his continued detention at Bacolod police
station.
AS A RULE, an accused is not entitled to the assistance of counsel in a police line-up considering that such is usually not a
part of the custodial inquest. However, the case at bar presents a different situation inasmuch as Escordial, having been
the focus of attention by the police after he had been pointed to by a certain Ramie as the possible perpetrator of the
crime, was already under custodial investigation when these out-of-court identifications were conducted by the police.
The Court has since ruled na everytime identification of an uncounseled accused is made in a police line-up or show-up
AFTER THE START OF the custodial investigation is INADMISSIBLE as evidence against him.
In this case, Escordial was identified by Michelle Darunsa via a SHOW-UP and by her roomates and the 2 children via a
POLICE LINE-UP. Hence, having been made without assistance of counsel, these out of court identifications are
INADMISSIBLE as evidence agaisnt Escordial.
BUT, because Escordial’s side failed to object immediately when the witnesses were presented by the prosecution, Escordial
is deemed to have waived his right to object to the admissibility of the testimonies of the witnesses.
Although the out of court identifications were inadmissible, the in-court identification is admissible! Also, the Court didn’t believe that the witnesses were credible because of the improbability of their statements, hence
Escordial was ACQUITTED!
FACTS:
1. Joniega and Esmeralda testimony:
- At 8PM, these 2 children witnesses were playing inside a jeepney parked in front of boarding house where Michele
Darunday (the rape victim in this case) was living along with 2 other women (Erma and Teresa).
- These 3 women namely Teresa, Michelle, and Erma were sleeping. Erma woke up because there was a man in the
room who had his head covered with a T-shirt and he had with him a 4-inch knife.
- He got their money.
- He gave a shirt first to Erma and told her to blindfold Teresa. Then, he gave another to Michelle and told her to
blindfold Erma.
- He blindfolded Michelle himself. He attempted to rape her but he failed at first in penetrating her so he inserted his 2
fingers and when he still failed, he went on to get some soapy water to put on her vagina and that’s when he
succeeded in the penetration.
- After that, he told Michelle that he used to catcall her and she’d just ignore him.
- He wanted to do it again with Michelle but she begged na wag na so he threatened her na he’ll call daw his
companions to rape her and he went on to do anal sex on her.
• He left and warned them not to tell a soul about the incident.
- Michelle told her Aunt about it and they were taken to the police headquarters where she was referred to the
Women’s desk to report the rape.
- Policeman Tancinco did some investigating and was told by Joniega and Esmeralda that on the night they were playing, a man inside the jeepney told them to go home. And Esmeralda also allegedly saw the man jump the fence
into the premises of the boarding house.
- Policeman Tancinco also got information from a certain Ramie that the description of the man (long hair, rough skin
on neck, small eyes, slim body, brown skin) fit that of a person working at café called Coffee Break Corner just 2
houses away from boarding house.
- Owner of café said that the man was his helper and that he had gone home to Negros, Occidental.
- Police asked assistance of Negros Occidental policemen in locating the man.
- Man was found in basketball court and was “INVITED” to go to police station for questioning.
- When man was faced with Michelle, she identified him as the rapist due to the keloid on the back of his neck and his
voice.
- In Bacolod police station, the 2 roomates Erma and Teresa and also the 2 children Joniega and Esmeralda,
were asked whether the man was the same person they saw on the night of the incident. They were taken
one by one to the jail cell and were asked to point to the person. They all picked the man.
2. Dr. Jocson testimony:
- That there were lacerations on Michelle’s vagina and there was pain whenever Michelle peed.
3. Sombito, Lavilla, PO2 Gmarino, Villaspen, Dojillo, Jayme, Jocame, and herein respondent accused-appelant
ANTHONY ESCORDIAL testimony:
- Respondent says that he was at home in Negros Occidental on the day the alleged rape happened. He even asked
the permission of his boss from the café. He even helped his friend’s mother in selling beer in a cockfight derby. He
played basketball and helped with chores. He was allegedly in the presence of Sombito and Lavilla amidst all these.
o He also claims that PO3 Tancinco beat him up and hit him with a butt of a shotgun to force him to admit liability
for the crime. And that he was subjected to torture and hit with a belt. Even burnt lips and tongue with cigarette.
- As to PO2 Gemarino and Villaspen, they said that policeman Tancinco of Bacolod police asked for their assistance
in locating respondent Escordial and that they didn’t have a warrant with them.
- Brgy. Captain Dojillo testified that he said that in the investigating room where Michelle was faced with Escordial and
the police officers, Michelle wasn’t sure if Escordial really was her attacker.
- As to Jayme, General Manager of Royal Express Transport, he testified that the last bus trip from Kabankalan to
Bacolod on December 27, 1996 left at 6PM. He said that the trip from Kabankalan to Negros Occidental would take
1 hour. He said the last trip his buses took was at 6PM which is always estimated to reach Bacolod City at 8 and that
his buses were not allowed to pick up passengers along the way (As per Escordial’s testimony, at 2PM of December
27, he took the bus to Negros Occidental
4. The RTC found him GUILTY.
5. Hence, this present petition.
ISSUES:
1. W/N warrantless arrest lawful? No.
2. W/N Escordial’s identification via police line-up admissible as evidence? (RELEVANT) No but waived
3. W/N prosecution witnesses credible? No.
HELD:
1.
(Re: Warrantless Arrest) The case at bar falls under Rule 113, Section 5 paragraph b.
a. The police officers DID NOT HAVE personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that would lead them to
believe that Escordial had just committed a crime because they were not present when the crime was
committed. The crime took place on 27 December, 1996 but Escordial was arrested only on 3 January,
1997 ( a week after the crime) hence the police had no reason for not securing a warrant.
2.
A. Although indeed Escordial was DEPRIVED of his right to be informed of his rights to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel, he HAS NOT SHOWN that, as a result of his custodial interrogation, the
police obtained any statement from him- whether inculpatory or exculpatory- which was used in evidence
against him.
- Also, the records don’t show that he had given one or that, in finding him guilty, the RTC relied on such
statement.
- In fact, Escordial testified that at NO POINT, even when subjected to physical torture, did he ever admit
committing the crime with which he was charged.
- In other words, no uncounselled statement was obtained from Escordial which should have been
excluded as evidence against him.
B. MORE IMPORTANTLY, from the time of arrest of Escordial, he was NEVER ASSISTED by counsel, whether of his
own choice or provided by police officers from the time of his arrest in Negros Occidental to the time of his
continued detention at Bacolod police station.
- SIDE NOTE #1: AS A RULE, an accused is not entitled to the assistance of counsel in a police line-up
considering that such is usually not a part of the custodial inquest
- However, the case at bar presents a different situation inasmuch as Escordial (having been the focus
of attention by the police after he had been pointed to by a certain Ramie as the possible perpetrator of the
crime) was already under custodial investigation when these out-of-court identifications were
conducted by the police.
- SIDE NOTE #2: There are 2 ways in which an out-of-court identification of an accused can be made:
- 1) SHOW UP – wherein accused alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification
- 2) POLICE LINE UP – wherein the suspect is identified by a witness from a group of persons gathered for
that purpose
During custodial investigation, these 2 types have been recognized as “critical confrontations of the
accused by the prosecution wherein KELANGAN NG PRESENCE OF COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED.
Why? Because whatever the result of these proceedings might settle the fate of the accused and reduce
the trial into a mere formality daw.
- DOCTRINE: the Court has since ruled na everytime identification of an uncounseled accused is made in a
police line-up or show-up AFTER THE START OF the custodial investigation is INADMISSIBLE as
evidence against him.
- In this case, Escordial was identified by Michelle Darunsa via a SHOW-UP and by her roomates and the 2
children via a POLICE LINE-UP.Hence, having been made without assistance of counsel, these out of
court identifications are INADMISSIBLE as evidence agaisnt Escordial.
- BUT BUT, because Escordial’s side failed to object immediately when the witnesses were presented by the
prosecution e di Escordial is deemed to have waived his right to object to the admissibility of the
testimonies of the witnesses.
- Altho the out of court identifications were inadmissible, the in-court identification is admissible!
3. The question here is whether or not the prosecution was able to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court
identifications were based upon observations of the suspect other than the line-up identification.
A. Testimony of Michelle
- Her testimony is INSUFFICIENT to prove that Escordial was the person who raped her. Why? Because:
- (you might want to take note of this) In a SHOW UP, this is an underhanded mode of identification
because it is SUGGESTIVE. The Court talked about SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES and that
basta mga lineup confrontations, there is always the danger of suggestibility! In this case, Michelle knew
that she was going to identify a suspect when she went to police station. She knew that the suspect brought
in by policeman Tancinco was the suspect that she was supposed to identify. There is a tendency daw for
witnesses to parang go with the flow para they don’t look foolish daw. Like the fact na the police brought in
the suspect, there is already an expectation na the witness will agree na that person brought in is indeed
the suspect. There is this psychological tendency to conform.
- + the fact na Michelle admitted na she didn’t even get to see the face of Escordial. She didn’t see the
keloids on his back. Also, she didn’t really react upon seeing Escordial enter the police station. In other
words, she didn’t recognize him.
B. Testimony of Erma
- Erma claims that she saw Escordial through her blindfold. She also claims na she’s known him for a long time na.
But Court feels na she didn’t really see Escordial. Why? Because:
o Police blotter referred to an “unknown suspect”. If she truly knew him, she should’ve reported it.
o Plus, there was a delay in Erma’s preparation of her affidavit, dapat she revealed it to the authorities at the
earliest opportunity because this would be the normal reaction supposedly if she really knew Escordial to
be the suspect.
C. Testimony of Escordial
- Court says na since imporbable and uncertain yung aforementioned testimonies of Michelle, Erma, etc, then the alibi
of Escordial na he was in a cockpit deserves credence
DISPOSITION: Escordial ACQUITTED!
Comments
Post a Comment