People v.

Macam
999
Date November 24, 1994 GR Number L-91011-12 Ponente

Article 3, Section 12 BRIAN PINEDA

Petitioners: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Respondents: Macam

Doctrine:
The prosecution did not present evidence regarding appellant's identification at the police
line-up. Hence, the exclusionary sanctions against the admission in evidence of custodial
identification of an uncounseled accused cannot be applied.
FACTS:

On August 18, 1987, aboard a tricycle, Eduardo Macam, Antonio Cedro, Eugenio Cawilan, Jr.,
Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque went to the house of Benito Macam located at 43 Fema
Road, Quezon City. Upon arrival, Eduardo Macam who is a nephew of Benito Macam talked
to the latter. After which, Eduardo was invited to eat lunch at Benito’s house. The former
then told the latter that he has company waiting outside. Benito then ordered his maid to let
Eduardo’s company in and likewise invited them for lunch. The group ate their lunch except
for Ernesto Roque who refused the invitation and preferred to wait outside in his tricycle.
After eating, Eduardo suddenly grabbed the clutch bag that Benito was holding and pulled
out the gun therein and announced a hold up. The group started ransacking the house and
searched for valuables. Benito and his household were tied up. His wife Leticia was killed and
the rest of them were stabbed by Eduardo’s group. The value of the items taken amounted
to P P536,700.00.

Upon police investigation, Ernesto and Danilo Roque denied participation of the crime. They
were then brought to Quezon City Gen. Hospital where Benito Macam and 2 of his household
members were confined and treated for the injuries they sustained during the robbery. They
were made to pinpoint their perpetrators as Ernesto and Danilo were made to line up
together with several policemen in civilian clothes.

The RTC of Quezon City convicted the five accused of the crime of Robbery with Homcide and
sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. It is with this decision
that Ernesto and Danilo are appealing from. One of their contention is that their uncounseled
identification by the prosecution witnesses during the police line-up at the hospital are
violative of their constitutional rights under Section 12, Article 3 of the Constitution
Issue/s: Ruling:
1. YES
1. Whether or not the police lineup was in the absence of their counsel was
violtive of their constitutional rights under Sec. 12, Art.3 of the Constitution.

Rationale:

After the start of the custodial investigation, any identification of an uncounseled accused
made in a police line-up is inadmissible. This is particularly true in the case at bench where
the police officers first talked to the victims before the confrontation was held. The
circumstances were such as to impart improper suggestions on the minds of the victims that
may lead to a mistaken identification. Appellants were handcuffed and had contusions on
their faces. However, in this case, the prosecution did not present evidence regarding
appellant's identification at the police line-up. Hence, the exclusionary sanctions against the
admission in evidence of custodial identification of an uncounseled accused cannot be
applied.

On the other hand, appellants did not object to the in-court identification made by the
prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witnesses, who made the identification of appellants
at the police line-up at the hospital, again identified appellants in open court. Appellants did
not object to the in-court identification as being tainted by the illegal line-up. In the absence
of such objection, the prosecution need not show that said identifications were of
independent origin (Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 18 L Ed 2d 1178, 87 S Ct 1951 [1967]).