Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PEOPLE v CACHUELA: Out of Court ID Ruling

    Uploaded by

    Carmela Salazar
    13 views1 page
    A witness named Zaldy identified the appellants during a police lineup as responsible for a robbery and killing. However, Zaldy was later brought to a mental health facility and died during the trial, so he did not testify in court. The court ruled that the out of court identification by Zaldy was inadmissible because without Zaldy available to testify, the defense had no opportunity to question him about the identification using the totality of circumstances test which considers factors like witness opportunity and attention during the crime, prior description accuracy, and identification procedure suggestiveness.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    CACHUE Vs THE PEOPLE.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    A witness named Zaldy identified the appellants during a police lineup as responsible for a robbery and killing. However, Zaldy was later brought to a mental health facility and died during the trial, so he did not testify in court. The court ruled that the out of court identification by Zaldy was inadmissible because without Zaldy available to testify, the defense had no opportunity to question him about the identification using the totality of circumstances test which considers factors like witness opportunity and attention during the crime, prior description accuracy, and identification procedure suggestiveness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    13 views1 page

    PEOPLE v CACHUELA: Out of Court ID Ruling

    Uploaded by

    Carmela Salazar
    A witness named Zaldy identified the appellants during a police lineup as responsible for a robbery and killing. However, Zaldy was later brought to a mental health facility and died during the trial, so he did not testify in court. The court ruled that the out of court identification by Zaldy was inadmissible because without Zaldy available to testify, the defense had no opportunity to question him about the identification using the totality of circumstances test which considers factors like witness opportunity and attention during the crime, prior description accuracy, and identification procedure suggestiveness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    PEOPLE v.

    CACHUELA

    June 10, 2013 | Brion, J.

    Topic: Out of Court Identifications

    Quick Facts:

    Accused were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of
    robbery with homicide, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. At the
    NBI Main Office, a witness named Zaldy pointed to the appellants, during a police line-up,
    as the persons responsible for the robbery at WSC and for the killing of the victim. Zaldy
    did not testify in court since he was brought to the National Center for Mental Health, and
    subsequently died there during the trial.

    Issue:

    WON the out of court identification by Zaldy was admissible - NO

    Doctrine:

    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.

    You might also like