People vs.

Pepino, 779 SCRA 170, January

12, 2016

Excerpt : 1.G.R . No . 174471 . January 12,

2016. [*] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
petitioner, vs. JERRY PEPINO y RUERAS and
PRECIOSA GOMEZ y CAMPOS, respondents.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure;
Arrests; Illegal Arrests; Warrantless Arrests;
The illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient
cause for setting aside a valid judgment
rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a
trial free from error.—It is settled that [a]ny
objection to the procedure followed in the
matter of the acquisition by a court of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused
must be 171 opportunely raised before he
enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is
deemed waived. As we held in People v.
Samson, 244 SCRA 146 (1995
More Excerpts
Case Title : PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
petitioner, vs. JERRY PEPINO y RUERAS and
PRECIOSA GOMEZ y CAMPOS, respondents.
Case Nature : APPEAL from a decision of the
Court of Appeals.
Syllabi Class :Remedial Law ; Evidence ;
Witnesses ; Out-of-Court-Identifications ;
Police Lineups ;
Syllabi:
1. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; View
that the habit of presenting the accused to the
media immediately after arrest poses an equal
threat to the personal liberty-
— which is protected by our Constitution — of
an individual who may be accused of
committing a crime that he or she did not
do.—Prevalence of kidnapping instills fear
among citizens, a type of fear that makes
citizens curtail their own personal liberties to
provide for their own security. However, the
habit of presenting the accused to the media
immediately after arrest poses an equal threat
to the personal liberty — which is protected by
our Constitution — of an individual who may
be accused of committing a crime that he or
she did not do. Police officers should improve
their standards and protocols in order to
improve the proper prosecution of those
accused of committing deplorable crimes like
kidnapping, as well as to balance the interests
of victims and of the accused.
2. Constitutional Law; Criminal
Procedure; Arrests; Illegal Arrests;
Warrantless Arrests; The illegal arrest of an
accused is not sufficient cause for setting
aside a valid judgment rendered upon a
sufficient complaint after a trial free from
error.-
—It is settled that [a]ny objection to the
procedure followed in the matter of the
acquisition by a court of jurisdiction over the
person of the accused must be opportunely
raised before he enters his plea; otherwise,
the objection is deemed waived. As we held in
People v. Samson, 244 SCRA 146 (1995):
[A]ppellant is now estopped from questioning
any defect in the manner of his arrest as he
failed to move for the quashing of the
information before the trial court.
Consequently, any irregularity attendant to his
arrest was cured when he voluntarily
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
trial court by entering a plea of “not guilty”
and by participating in the trial. At any rate,
the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient
cause for setting aside a valid judgment
rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a
trial free from error. Simply put, the illegality
of the warrantless arrest cannot deprive the
State of its right to prosecute the guilty when
all other facts on record point to their
culpability. It is much too late in the day to
complain about the warrantless arrest after a
valid information had been filed, the accused
had been arraigned, the trial had commenced
and had been completed, and a judgment of
conviction had been rendered against her.
3. Criminal Law; Kidnapping and Serious
Illegal Detention; Elements of.-
—The elements of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention under Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, are: (1) the
offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps
or detains another or in any other manner
deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of
detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
(4) in the commission of the offense, any of
the following circumstances is present: (a) the
kidnapping or detention lasts for more than
three (3) days; or (b) it is committed by
simulating public authority; or (c) serious
physical injuries are inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him
are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or
detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.
If the victim of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention is a minor, the duration of his
detention is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim
is kidnapped and illegally detained for the
purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of
his detention is also of no moment and the
crime is qualified and becomes punishable by
death even if none of the circumstances
mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 267
is present.
4. Same; Kidnapping; For there to be
kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is
restrained from going home.-
—It is settled that the crime of serious illegal
detention consists not only of placing a person
in an enclosure, but also in detaining him or
depriving him of his liberty in any manner. For
there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the
victim is restrained from going home. Its
essence is the actual deprivation of the
victim’s liberty, coupled with indubitable proof
of the intent of the accused to effect such
deprivation.
5. Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses;
Out-of-Court Identification; Totality of
Circumstances Test; 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, viz.: (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 People v. Teehankee, Jr., 249 SCRA 54
(1995), the Court explained the procedure for
out-of-court identification and the test to
determine the admissibility of such
identifications in this manner: 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 lineups where a witness identifies
the suspect from a group of persons lined up
for the purpose x x x 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, viz.: (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. Applying the totality-
of-circumstances test, we find Edward’s out-
of-court identification to be reliable and thus
admissible. To recall, when the three
individuals entered Edward’s office, they
initially pretended to be customers, and even
asked about the products that were for sale.
The three had told Edward that they were
going to pay, but Pepino “pulled out a gun”
instead. After Pepino’s companion had taken
the money from the cashier’s box, the
malefactors handcuffed Edward and forced
him to go down to the parked car. From this
sequence of events, there was thus ample
opportunity for Edward — before and after the
gun had been pointed at him — to view the
faces of the three persons who entered his
office. In addition, Edward stated that Pepino
had talked to him “[a]t least once a day”
during the four days that he was detained.
6. Same; Same; Same; Jurisprudence holds
that the natural reaction of victims of criminal
violence is to strive to see the appearance of
their assailants and observe the manner the
crime was committed.-
—Jurisprudence holds that the natural reaction
of victims of criminal violence is to strive to
see the appearance of their assailants and
observe the manner the crime was committed.
As the Court held in People v. Esoy, 617 SCRA
552 (2010): It is known that the most natural
reaction of a witness to a crime is to strive to
look at the appearance of the perpetrator and
to observe the manner in which the offense is
perpetrated. Most often the face of the
assailant and body movements thereof, create
a lasting impression which cannot be easily
erased from a witness’s memory. Experience
dictates that precisely because of the unusual
acts of violence committed right before their
eyes, eyewitnesses can remember with a high
degree of reliability the identity of criminals at
any given time. While this pronouncement
should be applied with great caution, there is
no compelling circumstance in this case that
would warrant its non-application.
7. Same; Criminal Procedure; Custodial
Investigations; Police Lineups; Right to
Counsel; Custodial investigation
commences when a person is taken into
custody and is singled out as a suspect in
the commission of the crime under
investigation. As a rule, a police lineup is
not part of the custodial investigation;
hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by the
Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this
stage.-
—The right to counsel is a fundamental right
and is intended to preclude the slightest
coercion that would lead the accused to admit
something false. The right to counsel attaches
upon the start of the investigation, i.e., when
the investigating officer starts to ask questions
to elicit information and/or confessions or
admissions from the accused. Custodial
investigation commences when a person is
taken into custody and is singled out as a
suspect in the commission of the crime under
investigation. As a rule, a police lineup is not
part of the custodial investigation; hence, the
right to counsel guaranteed by the
Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this
stage. The right to be assisted by counsel
attaches only during custodial investigation
and cannot be claimed by the accused during
identification in a police lineup.
8. Criminal Law; Conspiracy; Conspiracy
exists when two (2) or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a
crime and decide to commit it. It may be
proved by direct or circumstantial evidence
consisting of acts, words, or conduct of the
alleged conspirators before, during and after
the commission of the felony to achieve a
common design or purpose.-
—Conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a crime and decide to commit
it. It may be proved by direct or circumstantial
evidence consisting of acts, words, or conduct
of the alleged conspirators before, during and
after the commission of the felony to achieve a
common design or purpose. Proof of the
agreement does not need to rest on direct
evidence, as the agreement may be inferred
from the conduct of the parties indicating a
common understanding among them with
respect to the commission of the offense.
Corollarily, it is not necessary to show that two
or more persons met together and entered
into an explicit agreement setting out the
details of an unlawful scheme or the details by
which an illegal objective is to be carried out.
9. Same; Penalties; Death Penalty; With
the passage of Republic Act (RA) No. 9346,
entitled “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of
Death Penalty in the Philippines” (signed into
law on June 24, 2006), the death penalty may
no longer be imposed. The Supreme Court
(SC) sentenced Gomez to the penalty of
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole
pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.-
—Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, mandates the imposition of the
death penalty when the kidnapping or
detention is committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom from the victim or any other
person. Ransom, as employed in the law, is so
used in its common or ordinary sense;
meaning, a sum of money or other thing of
value, price, or consideration paid or
demanded for redemption of a kidnapped or
detained person, a payment that releases one
from captivity. In the present case, the
malefactors not only demanded but received
ransom for Edward’s release. The CA thus
correctly affirmed the RTC’s imposition of the
death penalty on Pepino and Gomez. With the
passage of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled “An
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty
in the Philippines” (signed into law on June 24,
2006), the death penalty may no longer be
imposed. We thus sentence Gomez to the
penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.
The reduced penalty shall likewise apply to the
non-appealing party, Pepino, since it is more
favorable to him.
10. Same; Kidnapping for Ransom; Civil
Indemnity; Moral Damages; Exemplary
Damages; In the case of People v.
Gambao, 706 SCRA 508 (2013), (also for
kidnapping for ransom), the Supreme
Court (SC) set the minimum indemnity
and damages where facts warranted the
imposition of the death penalty if not for
prohibition thereof by Republic Act (RA)
No. 9346, as follows: (1) P100,000.00 as
civil indemnity; (2) P100,000.00 as moral
damages which the victim is assumed to
have suffered and thus needs no proof;
and (3) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages
to set an example for the public good.-
—In the case of People v. Gambao, 706 SCRA
508 (2013), (also for kidnapping for ransom),
the Court set the minimum indemnity and
damages where facts warranted the imposition
of the death penalty if not for prohibition
thereof by R.A. No. 9346, as follows: (1)
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2)
P100,000.00 as moral damages which the
victim is assumed to have suffered and thus
needs no proof; and (3) P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages to set an example for the
public good. These amounts shall earn interest
at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum
from the date of the finality of the Court’s
Resolution until fully paid.
11. Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses;
View that premature media exposure of
suspected criminals affects the integrity of the
identification made by a witness.-
—Premature media exposure of suspected
criminals affects the integrity of the
identification made by a witness. Law
enforcers fail to prevent undue influence and
suggestion when they present suspects to the
media before the actual identification by a
witness. An irregular out-of-court identification
taints any subsequent identification made in
court.
12. Same; Same; Same; Out-of-Court
Identification; View that there are two (2)
modes of out-of-court identifications. One (1)
mode of out-of-court identification is the police
lineup where the witness selects a “suspect
from a group of persons lined up[.]” Another
mode of identification is the show up. In show
ups, only one person is presented to the
witness or victim for identification.-
—There are two modes of out-of-court
identifications. One mode of out-of-court
identification is the police lineup where the
witness selects a “suspect from a group of
persons lined up[.]” Another mode of
identification is the show up. In show ups,
only one person is presented to the witness or
victim for identification. Show ups are less
preferred and are considered “an underhanded
mode of identification for ‘being pointedly
suggestive, generat[ing] confidence where
there was none, activat[ing] visual
imagination, and, all told, subvert[ing]” the
reliability of the eyewitness. Both the lineup
and the show up are referred to as corporeal
identification: the body of the suspect is there
for identification. Out-of-court identifications
are not limited to corporeal identifications.
Police can use photographs or mug shots to
identify the perpetrator.
13. Same; Same; Same; View that
eyewitness identification is affected by
“normal human fallibilities and suggestive
influences.”-
—Eyewitness identification is affected by
“normal human fallibilities and suggestive
influences.” Courts use the totality of
circumstances test to ensure the reliability of
any of the modes of out-of-court identification.
The test was originally used in the United
States but was introduced in this jurisdiction in
the 1995 case of People v. Teehankee, Jr.,
249 SCRA 54. In determining the validity of
the out-of-court identification, the following
factors are considered: (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.
14. Same; Same; Same; View that advances
in cognitive psychology and studies on
eyewitness testimonies show that the degree
of a witness’ attentiveness in perceiving an
event is influenced by various factors,
including exposure time, frequency of
exposure, level of violence of the event, the
witness’ stress levels and expectations, and
the witness’ activity during the crime.-
—Advances in cognitive psychology and
studies on eyewitness testimonies show that
the degree of a witness’ attentiveness in
perceiving an event is influenced by various
factors, including exposure time, frequency of
exposure, level of violence of the event, the
witness’ stress levels and expectations, and
the witness’ activity during the crime. The
level of violence of the event tends to
influence the witness’ stress levels. One area
of continuous psychological research is the
effect of the presence of a weapon on the
attention of an individual to an incident. Since
the 1970s, psychologists hypothesized that
the presence of a weapon captures a witness’
attention and reduces the witness’ ability to
pay attention to peripheral details (such as the
facial features of the individuals brandishing
the weapon). The research model often
involves two groups: a group that witnesses
an incident where a gun is used, and another
group that sees the same incident but with no
weapon used (usually a pencil or syringe is
used in lieu of a gun). Both groups are asked
to identify the perpetrator in a lineup. Results
would show that the presence of a weapon
makes a statistically significant difference in
the accuracy of eyewitness identification.
15. Same; Same; Same; View that a witness
who is certain about seeing the crime but
uncertain about the facial features of its
perpetrators may sound certain about both the
crime and the identity of the perpetrator
during trial.-
—Certainty of the witness is often tested
during cross-examination. Thus, in many
cases, this court finds a witness credible
because of a straight and candid recollection
of the incident that remains unhampered by
the rigors of cross-examination. However, this
circumstance should never be evaluated in a
vacuum. A witness who is certain about seeing
the crime but uncertain about the facial
features of its perpetrators may sound certain
about both the crime and the identity of the
perpetrator during trial. This is because by the
time a witness takes the witness stand, he or
she has already narrated the incident to the
police, the public prosecutor and, at times,
private prosecutors and members of the press.
He or she becomes “certain” not because of
the ability to perceive at the time of the
incident, but because he or she has become
an experienced storyteller of the narrative and
has already confronted questions that may
arise during cross-examination with rehearsed
answers. The ability of the witness to
consistently identify the perpetrator
throughout trial does not necessarily mean
that he or she correctly identified the
perpetrator at the start of the investigation.
16. Same; Same; Same; View that
information acquired by the witness after the
incident can reconstruct the way the witness
recalls the event.-
—Memory is not affected only by the mere
passage of time. It is also affected by the
interactions of the witness with other
individuals relating to the event. Information
acquired by the witness after the incident can
reconstruct the way the witness recalls the
event. According to Elizabeth F. Loftus, a
cognitive psychologist, “[p]ost[-]event
information can not only enhance existing
memories but also change a witness’s memory
and even cause nonexistent details to become
incorporated into a previously acquired
memory.”
17. Same; Same; Same; View that when the
suggestiveness is principally due to a
premature media presentation of the accused
coupled with the accusation by law enforcers,
it is reasonable to assume that the subsequent
identification is already tainted.-
—Generally, suggestiveness in the
identification procedure should always be
proven by evidence. If an allegation of
suggestiveness is not proven, this court often
affirms the conviction. In People v. Pavillare,
329 SCRA 684 (2000), this court ruled that
the appellant who argued the impropriety of
the police lineup should have presented during
trial the police officers who conducted the
lineup. However, when the suggestiveness is
principally due to a premature media
presentation of the accused coupled with the
accusation by law enforcers, it is reasonable to
assume that the subsequent identification is
already tainted.
18. Same; Same; Same; Out-of-Court-
Identifications; View that irregularities in
out-of-court identifications are cured through
in-court identifications.-
—This court have also held that irregularities
in out-of-court identifications are cured
through in-court identifications. In People v.
Macam, 238 SCRA 306 (1994), despite finding
the illegality of the lineup, this court stated
that since the appellants did not object during
trial, the prosecution did not need to show
that the in-court identification was made
independently from the invalid lineup.
19. Same; Same; Same; Same; Police
Lineups; View that for a lineup to be truly
fair, it should be composed of individuals-
— including the suspect — who fit the
description of the perpetrator as provided by a
witness.—Law enforcement agents must
conduct their investigation properly to avoid
instances when the lineup bears doubtful
validity due to the presence, of suggestive
influences. For a lineup to be truly fair, it
should be composed of individuals — including
the suspect — who fit the description of the
perpetrator as provided by a witness. If there
is a high probability that a random individual
merely relies on the prior description of the
eyewitness to select a suspect from a lineup,
this lineup is not fair. A lineup is only balanced
if, in a lineup of six individuals, the probability
that the random individual identifies the
suspect is not more than 1/6.
20. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; View
that if there is more than one (1) suspect,
they should be subjected to separate lineups
composed of different individuals in order to
reduce suggestiveness.-
—If there is more than one suspect, they
should be subjected to separate lineups
composed of different individuals in order to
reduce suggestiveness. If the police officers
can conduct only one lineup, members of the
lineup must have decoys of the same race or
color, age range, gender expression, build,
and appearance of the different suspects. The
general rule is that it should not be easy for
the witness to single out a suspect.

Division: EN BANC

Docket Number: G.R. No. 174471

Counsel: Reinaldo S.P. Lazaro for respondent

Jerry Pepino y Rueras.

Ponente: BRION

Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing,
we AFFIRM the challenged June 16, 2006
decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 02026 with the following
MODIFICATIONS: (1) the penalty imposed on
Gomez and Pepino shall be reduced from
death to reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole; (2) they are jointly and severally
ordered to pay the reduced amount of
P100,000.00 as moral damages; (3) Gomez is
further ordered to pay the victim P100,000.00
as civil indemnity; and (4) the awarded
amounts shall earn interest at the rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the date of the
finality of the Court’s Decision until fully paid.

Citation Ref:
281 SCRA 577 | 248 SCRA 460 | 249 SCRA 54
| 238 SCRA 306 | 255 SCRA 85 | 417 SCRA 66
| 433 SCRA 640 | 179 SCRA 325 | 221 SCRA
251 | 215 SCRA 266 | 244 SCRA 146 | 312
SCRA 137 | 522 SCRA 174 | 284 SCRA 520 |
578 SCRA 601 | 366 SCRA 98 | 290 SCRA 155
| 294 SCRA 466 | 564 SCRA 584 | 581 SCRA
691 | 706 SCRA 508 | 651 SCRA 489 | 660
SCRA 407 | 740 SCRA 437 | 617 SCRA 552 |
619 SCRA 481 | 620 SCRA 54 | 678 SCRA 332
| 329 SCRA 684 | 698 SCRA 161 | 290 SCRA
155 | 617 SCRA 552 | 290 SCRA 155 | 617
SCRA 552 | 290 SCRA 155 | 617 SCRA 552 |
740 SCRA 437 | 578 SCRA 601 | 620 SCRA 54
| 617 SCRA 552 | 620 SCRA 54 | 581 SCRA
691 | 619 SCRA 481 | 620 SCRA 54 | 617
SCRA 552 | 651 SCRA 489 | 423 SCRA 448 |
429 SCRA 364 | 429 SCRA 478 | 373 SCRA
585 | 326 SCRA 660 | 698 SCRA 161 | 651
SCRA 489 | 698 SCRA 161 | 698 SCRA 161 |
698 SCRA 161 |

View Decision