G.R. No. 141644 – 429 SCRA 478 – 473 Phil. 517 – Remedial Law – Evidence – Testimonial Evidence – Identification of the Accused – Impermissible Suggestion
In October 1997, a bus plying the Quirino Highway was robbed by six individuals. A passenger was killed during the robbery. On the statements of three witnesses, Rolando Pineda and five others were implicated in the robbery. Pineda et al were later arrested.
During trial, it was found out that during the police investigation, only the pictures of Pineda and another accused were shown to the witnesses and on that basis, Pineda was implicated in the robbery with homicide case.
ISSUE: Whether or not Pineda must be acquitted.
HELD: Yes. One of the bases in convicting an accused is credible and convincing testimony that establishes the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. That was not met in this case.
Although showing mug shots of suspects is one of the established methods of identifying criminals, the procedure used in this case is unacceptable. The first rule in proper photographic identification procedure is that a series of photographs must be shown, and not merely that of the suspect. The second rule directs that when a witness is shown a group of pictures, their arrangement and display should in no way suggest which one of the pictures pertains to the suspect. Thus:
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’s 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.”
A recognition of this psychological phenomenon leads logically to the conclusion that where a witness has made a photographic identification of a person, his subsequent corporeal identification of that same person is somewhat impaired in value, and its accuracy must be evaluated in light of the fact that he first saw a photograph.
In the present case, there was impermissible suggestion because the photographs were only of Pineda and one other accused, focusing attention on the two accused. The police obviously suggested the identity of the accused by showing only the two accused’s photographs to the witnesses.
