G.R. No. 174471, January 12, 2016.
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Jerry Pepino y Rueras and Preciosa Gomez y Campos, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

The case involves the kidnapping for ransom of Edward Tan on June 28, 1997. Two men and a woman forcibly took him from his workplace. The kidnappers, including accused-appellant Jerry Pepino, demanded a ransom, which was later negotiated to P700,000. Edward was released after the payment. Five months after the incident, Edward and his wife Jocelyn were invited to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to identify the kidnappers from a line-up of seven individuals. Edward identified Pepino, Preciosa Gomez, and Mario Galgo. Only Pepino and Gomez were arraigned and convicted by the Regional Trial Court. Pepino withdrew his appeal, leaving only Gomez’s appeal. Gomez argued that her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting irregularities in the identification process. Specifically, she and others were presented to the media as suspects on December 8, 1997, a day before the NBI line-up on December 9, 1997. She contended that this media exposure tainted the subsequent out-of-court and in-court identifications, violating her constitutional right to be presumed innocent and to due process, as she was subjected to the line-up without counsel.

ISSUE

Whether the out-of-court identification of accused-appellant Preciosa Gomez y Campos was reliable and admissible, considering the alleged irregularities, particularly her prejudicial media exposure as a suspect a day before the police line-up, which may have tainted the identification process and violated her constitutional rights.

RULING

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Leonen voted for the acquittal of Preciosa Gomez due to reasonable doubt. He emphasized that premature media exposure of suspected criminals affects the integrity of witness identification. Law enforcers fail to prevent undue influence and suggestion when they present suspects to the media before actual witness identification. An irregular out-of-court identification taints any subsequent in-court identification. Applying the totality of circumstances test from People v. Teehankee, Jr., the dissent focused on the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. The media presentation on December 8, 1997, where Gomez was branded as a kidnapper, created a high probability that the witness, Edward Tan, had already seen her in media reports, making the identification easier and highly suspect. This exposure violated Gomez’s right to be presumed innocent. Furthermore, the dissent noted that the line-up was conducted without counsel, despite Gomez already being a treated suspect, potentially violating her right to due process. Given the lack of a prior description of the perpetrator and the prejudicial media exposure, there was a reasonable probability of erroneous identification, leading to a wrongful conviction. Therefore, the identification was unreliable, and Gomez should be acquitted.