People v. Quillo

 

People v. Quillo

G.R. No. 232338

July 8, 2019

FACTS:

                The RTC and CA convicted Ramon Quillo y Esmani for the crime of Murder under Art. 248. At about 6:30 p.m. of May 28, 2014, Michael, Gina, Corazon, and the victim, Vivien Yap-De Castro (Vivien), were walking along Ilang-Ilang Street towards IBP Road when a black motorcycle of an unknown plate number with two persons onboard stopped beside them. The back rider shouted "ate!”, pointed a gun towards Vivien, and fired two (2) successive shots immediately killing the victim. The witnesses alleged that they saw the face of the back rider as he was not wearing any helmet. After about one (1) minute from the time Vivien was shot, the tandem proceeded to Litex Street. Ramon was later identified as the back rider in Camp Karingal and in court.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not he should be convicted of murder.

HELD:

                No. Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thru line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. Since corruption of out-of-court identification contaminates the integrity of in-court identification during the trial of the case, courts have fashioned out rules to assure its fairness and its compliance with the requirements of constitutional due process. In resolving the admissibility of and relying on 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. In this case, the identification was done through a police line-up. Applying the totality of circumstances test, The Court finds that the out-of-court identification made by Michael, Gina, and Corazon is unreliable and cannot be made the basis for Ramon's conviction. A comprehensive analysis of their testimonies reveals that such are dubious and lack probative weight.