550 PEOPLE VS. PEPINO - G.R. NO.

174471 - JANUARY 12, 2016

FACTS

Edward Tan was forcibly brought outside his office to a metallic green Toyota Corolla. The abductors then placed
surgical tape over Edward's eyes and made him wear sunglasses. After travelling for two and a half hours, they arrived
at an apartment in Quezon City. The abductors removed the tape from Edward's eyes, placed him in a room, and then
chained his legs. Pepino approached Edward and asked for the phone number of his father so that he could ask for
ransom for his (Edward's) liberty. Edward told Pepino to negotiate with his wife, but the latter insisted on talking to
his father. At around 5:00 p.m. of the same day, the kidnappers called Edward's father who eventually agreed to a
P700,000.00 ransom. After four days, or on July 1, 1997, there was a successful exchange between the money and
Edward was set free. After five months, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) informed Edward that they had
apprehended some suspects, and invited him to identify them from a lineup consisting of seven persons: five males
and two females. Edward positively identified Pepino, Gomez, and one Mario Galgo.  Jocelyn likewise identified
Pepino.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Police lineup was suggestive, on the part of the police and NBI agents, that appellants were the
kidnappers

RULING

NO. The lack of a prior description of the kidnappers in the present case should not lead to a conclusion that
witnesses' identification was erroneous. The lack of a prior description of the kidnappers was due to the fact that
Jocelyn (together with other members of Edward's family), for reasons not made known in the records, opted to
negotiate with the kidnappers, instead of immediately seeking police assistance. If members of Edward's family had
refused to cooperate with the police, their refusal could have been due to their desire not to compromise Edward's
safety. In the same manner, Edward, after he was freed, chose to report the matter to Teresita Ang See, and not to the
police. Given these circumstances, the lack of prior description of the malefactors in this case should not in any way
taint the identification that Edward and Jocelyn made.

We note that there were seven people in the lineup; Edward was not compelled to focus his attention on any specific
person or persons. While it might have been ideal if there had been more women included in the lineup instead of
only two, or if there had been a separate lineup for Pepino and for Gomez, the fact alone that there were five males
and two females in the lineup did not render the procedure irregular. There was no evidence that the police had
supplied or even suggested to Edward that the appellants were the suspected perpetrators.

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. 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.

Pepino and Gomez are rightfully convicted of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code.