Case Summary (G.R. No. 157472)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Incident: February 15–16, 2006. Arrests and identification: February 19–21, 2006. Trial court Joint Decision convicting petitioners: November 10, 2010 (dismissed one docket for double jeopardy and proceeded with one case). Court of Appeals affirmed: January 31, 2013; motion for reconsideration denied July 5, 2013. Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court followed; Supreme Court reversed and acquitted petitioners.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Framework
Criminal standard: guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; accused entitled to presumption of innocence and due process under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Admissibility of out-of-court identification governed by judicially developed safeguards and the “totality of circumstances” test (People v. Teehankee, Jr. and related jurisprudence). Custodial show-ups/lineups implicate right to counsel and due process when suggestive.
Facts as Found by the Prosecution
Complainant Macutay testified he and companions had a flat tire at night; four armed men emerged from a parked white car, threatened “holdup,” took his watch, t-shirt and wallet, and drove off with the Honda Wave motorcycle (plate BI-8085). Police later recovered a white Mitsubishi Lancer containing the motorcycle’s plate; on February 21, 2006 the police presented five persons to Macutay for identification, and he identified Concha, Managuelod and Caliguiran as perpetrators. The prosecution also produced testimony of police officers, including SPO4 Anapi.
Defense Version and Police Custody Allegations
Concha and Managuelod testified to arrests and detention prior to the identification. Concha claimed he was picked up on February 19, detained and intimidated to sign a document, and only met Managuelod in detention. Managuelod testified he was arrested at home, brought to Cabagan Police Station, detained and allegedly assaulted by SPO4 Anapi. Both denied involvement and asserted they did not see Macutay at the station on February 21.
Trial Court Findings
The Regional Trial Court dismissed one information for double jeopardy and convicted Concha and Managuelod on the remaining information, principally relying on Macutay’s testimony that he identified the culprits in a police lineup and in-court. The trial court did not give decisive weight to the recovered plate to prove possession by the accused but deemed Macutay’s in-court identification credible due to his allegedly spontaneous and consistent testimony, and ordered indeterminate sentences plus actual damages.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a police line-up is not legally required and that an out-of-court identification may be admissible if not suggestive. The appellate court concluded the records contained no indication of police suggestion and emphasized Macutay’s in-court identification as removing doubt. It also rejected the uncorroborated alibi defense for lack of supporting evidence.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
(1) Whether the out-of-court identification of petitioners was admissible; (2) whether petitioners were proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of carnapping. The petition invoked alleged misapprehension of facts by the lower courts, namely that the identification was a suggestive police show-up rather than a fair lineup and that Macutay’s identification failed the totality of circumstances test.
Rules Governing Out‑of‑Court Identification
The Supreme Court reiterated that correct identification is a foundational burden of the prosecution. Out-of-court identification modalities include show-ups, mug shots, and lineups. Courts apply the “totality of circumstances” test considering: (1) opportunity to view the offender; (2) degree of attention; (3) accuracy of prior description; (4) level of certainty at identification; (5) time lapse between crime and identification; and (6) suggestiveness of the procedure. Show-ups and uncounseled identifications during custodial investigation may be constitutionally and evidentially infirm.
Supreme Court Analysis—Characterization of Procedure
The Supreme Court found that the police procedure was, in fact, a show-up (police show-up where only the detained suspects were presented), not a proper non-suggestive lineup. This determination relied on SPO4 Anapi’s testimony and admissions by the respondent. The Court emphasized that presenting only the persons already suspected and detained rendered the procedure inherently suggestive.
Supreme Court Analysis—Application of the Totality of Circumstances
Applying the six-factor test, the Court found the out-of-court identification deficient on multiple points: (a) No prior descriptive details were recorded when Macutay first reported the incident; (b) Macutay admitted he was frightened and confused during the robbery, diminishing his degree of attention; (c) there was no demonstrated accuracy or particularity in any prior description to corroborate later identification; (d) the record did not establish the witness’s level of certainty independent of the suggestive procedure; and (e) while the lapse between incident and identification was short, this alone did not cure defects on the other factors. Critically, the police showed only four detained suspects—matching the number of assailants known to Macutay—which likel
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 157472)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision dated January 31, 2013 and Resolution dated July 5, 2013 in CA‑G.R. CR No. 33806.
- Trial court (Regional Trial Court, Cabagan, Isabela, Branch 22) rendered a Joint Decision dated November 10, 2010 finding Melky Concha and Romeo Managuelod guilty beyond reasonable doubt of carnapping (Criminal Cases Nos. 22‑2219 and 22‑2220), dismissed one information on double jeopardy grounds, and imposed penalties and damages.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision on January 31, 2013 and denied reconsideration by Resolution dated July 5, 2013.
- Petitioners filed the Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court on July 30, 2013; the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment; petitioners filed a Reply and later a Memorandum; this Court gave due course and required memoranda; parties filed submissions.
- Supreme Court decision (Third Division) dated October 3, 2018, penned by Justice Leonen, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution and acquitted petitioners for reasonable doubt; ordered immediate release unless otherwise lawfully detained and directed administrative notifications to Bureau of Corrections and Philippine National Police.
Title, Parties, and Docket References
- Full case title as extracted from source: MELKY CONCHA AND ROMEO MANAGUELOD, PETITIONERS, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
- Criminal Informations docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 22‑2219 and 22‑2220 before the Regional Trial Court.
- Court of Appeals case referenced as CA‑G.R. CR No. 33806.
- Supreme Court Petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 (Rollo citations provided in source).
Facts: Incident and Immediate Events (February 15–16, 2006)
- On or about February 15, 2006, at about 11:00 p.m., Michael Macutay (the driver) was using a Honda Wave 100 cc motorcycle (Plate No. BI‑8085), owned by Eugenio Cacho, with a sidecar carrying relatives; the group was traversing the highway between Lallauanan and Liwanag, Tumauini, Isabela, when the motorcycle suffered a flat tire.
- While pushing the motorcycle, the group encountered a parked white car on the highway; four armed persons emerged from the car, one pointed what Macutay believed to be a gun and declared "holdup."
- The four armed men took Macutay’s Seiko watch, t‑shirt, and wallet containing P400 and his license, ordered him to run; Macutay jumped near the edge of the road, and he and his companions hid; the armed men took the motorcycle, leaving the sidecar behind; one of the armed men rode the motorcycle while the others returned to the white car and left.
- Macutay reported the incident to the Tumauini Philippine National Police at around 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. of February 16, 2006; he accompanied the police to the scene and showed where the motorcycle was taken, their positions, and where he jumped.
Facts: Recovery and Police Procedures (February 20–21, 2006)
- On February 20, 2006, Tumauini police received information from Cabagan police that a white Mitsubishi Lancer (Plate PyT 415) had been recovered; SPO4 Juan C. Anapi went to Cabagan, obtained consent from Cabagan Chief of Police Juancho Alobba to open the car, and found Plate No. BI‑8085 (the motorcycle plate) in the trunk.
- Discovery of the plate was witnessed by police officers (PO3 Bautista, PO1 Albano, Officer Paguirigan, and others), as well as by Macutay and Arnold Balabbo.
- On February 21, 2006, Tumauini police went to Macutay’s house and asked him to accompany them to Cabagan Police Station to identify persons suspected to be responsible.
- At the station the police presented to Macutay several apprehended persons for identification; testimony and summaries vary as to whether five persons or four persons were shown: the trial court summary noted five persons shown, while SPO4 Anapi’s testimony and respondent admitted that four persons were shown.
Parties Charged, Arraignment, and Pleas
- Informations charged Marlon Caliguiran, Alvin Tamang, Melky Concha, and Romeo Managuelod with two counts of carnapping under Republic Act No. 6539 (Anti‑Carnapping Act of 1972); informations recited conspiracy, use of firearms, force and intimidation, and taking of Honda Wave motorcycle Plate No. BI‑8085 valued at PhP 44,000.00 (alleged date of offense February 15, 2006 in Tumauini, Isabela).
- Petitioners Concha and Managuelod were arraigned on January 21, 2009 and pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution Evidence and Witnesses
- Prosecution witnesses included Michael Macutay (victim), Eugenio Cacho (owner of the motorcycle), and SPO4 Juan C. Anapi (Tumauini police); their testimonies corroborated that the Honda Wave motorcycle was forcibly taken by four accused from Macutay, with one of them pointing a gun and declaring "holdup," dispossession of watch, t‑shirt, wallet, and the motorcycle taken by one assailant who rode away followed by the white car.
- SPO4 Anapi testified on recovery procedures, opening of the white car trunk, discovery of the motorcycle plate, and the identification procedure.
- Trial record contains transcripted Q&A from Macutay recounting the holdup, his fear and confusion, the taking of possessions and motorcycle, and that only one of the four rode the motorcycle away.
Defense Evidence and Testimony (Concha and Managuelod)
- Melky Concha testified that on February 19, 2006 at around 10:00 a.m. he was stopped by police officers while walking home and brought to Cabagan Police Station, detained in a cell from February 19 to February 22, 2006, and then transferred to the Provincial Jail on February 22; he claimed intimidation to sign a document and stated he learned of Managuelod only while detained.
- Concha denied involvement in carnapping, disputed that he was identified by Macutay (claimed he did not see Macutay at the police station on February 21), and asserted other detainees (including Caliguiran and Balabbo) were present at Cabagan Police Station.
- Romeo Managuelod testified he was arrested by a Tumauini police officer (Baquiran) on February 19, 2006 at about 12:00 p.m., was transferred to Cabagan Police Station and detained from February 19 to February 21, 2006; he claimed daily mauling and boxing by SPO4 Anapi, including being struck on the forehead with a vehicle plate during transfer; he denied involvement and contested Macutay’s ability to have identified him on February 21, 2006.
- On rebuttal, SPO4 Anapi denied mauling, assault, or boxing of Concha and Managuelod and contended that the police were trained to conduct investigations, not maul detainees; he maintained he was not inside the police station at the times alleged by petitioners.
Trial Court Findings (Regional Trial Court, November 10, 2010)
- The trial court recognized that two Informations charged the same accused for the same alleged act regarding the same subject matter (Honda Wave motorcycle Plate BI‑8085); in view of the accused’s right against double jeopardy, Criminal Case No. 22‑2220 was dismissed and Criminal Case No. 22‑2219 proceeded.
- The trial court did not give weight to the physical evidence of Plate No. BI‑8085 to prove possession by the accused prior to police discovery; prosecution had not proved that any accused possessed the plate before police found it in the trunk of the white Mitsubishi Lancer, so the presumption that they had taken the plate or vehicle did not arise.
- Nonetheless, the trial court found petitioners Concha and