People of the Philippines vs Lee Rodrigo et al

G.R. No. 176159 – 586 Phil. 515 – 564 SCRA 584 – Remedial Law – Evidence – Testimonial Evidence – Identification of the Accused – Impermissible Suggestion

In October 2000, three armed men entered the restaurant owned by spouses Paquito and Rosita Buna. The armed men began robbing the place and when Paquito saw what was happening he intervened but one the armed men shot him three times. He later died because of the gunshot wounds.

One month after the incident, Rosita was invited to the police station where she was shown a lone photograph which the police describe to her as the suspect. Rosita told the police that the person in the picture was the person who pointed a gun at someone and was the one who took the money from Paquito. The person in the picture was Lee Rodrigo.

In February 2001, an Information for robbery with homicide was filed against Lee Rodrigo.

In May 2001, Rodrigo was arrested. After he was arrested, Rosita was invited to the police station and she identified Rodrigo as one of the robbers.

During trial, she again identified Lee Rodrigo as one of the robbers (in-court identification).

In June 2005, Lee Rodrigo was convicted by the trial court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction is proper.

HELD: No. There was an impermissible suggestion in this case.

The initial photographic identification in this case carries serious constitutional law implications in terms of the possible violation of the due process rights of the accused as it may deny him his rights to a fair trial to the extent that his in-court identification proceeded from and was influenced by impermissible suggestions in the earlier photographic identification. In the context of this case, the investigators might not have been fair to Rodrigo if they themselves, purposely or unwittingly, fixed in the mind of Rosita, or at least actively prepared her mind to, the thought that Rodrigo was one of the robbers. At no point did Rosita describe the robbers so that a take-off point for comparison can be made.

Effectively, this act is no different from coercing a witness in identifying an accused, varying only with respect to the means used. Either way, the police investigators are the real actors in the identification of the accused; evidence of identification is effectively created when none really exists.

Where a photograph has been identified as that of the guilty party, any subsequent corporeal identification of that person may be based not upon the witness’ recollection of the features of the guilty party, but upon his recollection of the photograph. Thus, although a witness who is asked to attempt a corporeal identification of a person whose photograph he previously identified may say, “That’s the man that did it,” what he may actually mean is, “That’s the man whose photograph I identified.”

Rosita’s photographic identification was attended by an impermissible suggestion that tainted her in-court identification of Rodrigo as one of the three robbers. Rosita’s identification cannot be considered as proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of Rodrigo as one of the perpetrators of the crime.

Read full text.