MURAO, JOSE PEPITO III

I. Article III Section 12, Miranda Rights/ When rights to Custodial Investigation may be Invoked:

People v. Loveria G.R. No. 79138

Facts:
On February 21, 1985, at around 7:00 pm, 4 men acting in unison burglarized the jeepney being driven by
Cerilo Manzanero. According to the driver Manzanero, herein accused David Loveria shouted ‘hold-up’
and then proceeded to threaten him with a knife on his neck. While, Loveria was neutralizing Manzanero,
the three other holdup men were obtaining jewelries, watches, rings, necklaces, and any other valuable item
from the passengers of the jeepney. While in the ruckus, passenger Ricardo Yamson was stabbed by one of
the holduppers and said passenger died shortly after.
In the trial for the crime, Manzanero, his conductor Richard Bales, passenger Betty Apolinario, along with
patrolmen and doctors who conducted examinations on the wounded passengers testified for the
prosecution. For his defense, Loveria said that he was tending to his volunteer work in Share and Care for
Poor Settlers Pastoral (SCAP) when the event occurred and he was obtaining money from parents for
transportation fees at the exact time the crime had happened.
The Regional Trial Court found Loveria guilty of the complex crime Robbery with Homicide and
Frustrated Homicide for the events that transpired that February night. Hence, this appeal to the Supreme
Court.
Issue:
W/N the uncounseled identification of Loveria by Manzanero is admissible?
Held:
YES. Generally, accused are not required to be given the right to counsel when being identified in a police
line-up. What was ensured by the 1973 Constitution, identical to the 1987 Constitution is right to counsel
when being directly investigated upon and interrogated by police while under custodial investigation. Thus,
when Manzanero heard of news that men were being held in the PC headquarters in Antipolo for suspected
robbery, he checked whether it was the same men who conducted a holdup to his jeep. Manzanero later
filed a sworn statement by virtue of identifying Loveria that was later used in court. Assuming that the
court makes the uncounseled identification of Loveria inadmissible, the testimony of Manzanero
identifying Loveria as one of the holduppers is still left untainted and is equally condemning. Further, the
court deems the miniscule discrepancies in the statements and affidavits by the witnesses forwarded by the
prosecution as normal inconsistencies that do not impair the credibility of witnesses. RTC decision is
hereby AFFIRMED.