Appropriate method of photographic identification

Dear PAO,

A man was killed while attending the festivities of the 1st anniversary of the founding of our city. The police conducted an initial investigation. However, since the first witnesses were unable to positively identify any suspects, the police entered in their register “unidentified suspects still at large”. During the trial, the same witnesses now claimed to have positively identified the suspects after seeing, at the police station, the photos of alleged suspects who are members of a notorious gang in our city. One of the suspects is my son. Is there a flaw in the way the suspects were identified?

Lorna

Dear Lorna,

Positive identification of witnesses presented at trial is not sufficient to convict an accused. The prosecution must demonstrate that the person identified matches the original description given by the same witnesses when the crime was first reported. In other words, the defendant's conviction depends less on the certainty displayed by the witnesses on the stand than on the certainty and accuracy they demonstrated on the first and original opportunity to identify authors. This view is supported by the Supreme Court's latest decision in People v. Mark John Maantos et al., GR 258925, dated July 12, 2023, authored by Associate Justice Mario v. Lopez, where the Court ruled:

“In this situation, Maantos and his co-defendants were identified by Escala and Litua after the police investigator showed them the photos of the Crips gang members. In the case of People v. Ansano, we stated that this seemingly innocuous process of photographic identification is unconscionably suggestive. Since human memory is very sensitive to suggestion, there is a high probability of irreparable misidentification during the procedure. This is particularly true in the case of Maantos due to his notoriety as a gang leader in the locality. Thus, in the case of People v. Rodrigo, the Court emphasized that the proper method of photographic identification should be: “first, a series of photographs must be shown and not just that of the suspect; and second, when a witness is shown a group of photos, their arrangement and presentation should in no way suggest which of the photos relates to the suspect. »

“Unfortunately, there is no evidence that law enforcement followed proper photo identification procedures in this case. When Escala and Litua were summoned to the police station over a week after the incident, the photos they were shown were of members of the Crips gang. Clearly, this approach is highly suggestive because it did not draw attention to anyone other than the gang members, particularly Maantos, who is their leader. Furthermore, there was no explanation as to why, out of all the individuals who attended the Charter Day celebration, police investigators singled out the Crips gang, when there was no mention of their group's involvement prior to their identification by Escala and Litua. In fact, the two blotter notes made on the same day of the incident clearly indicated that the group was involved. “suspects not identified,” with no description or reference to a person, group or gang.

Applying the above to your case, it becomes clear that there is reasonable doubt as to how the witnesses identified the suspects during the trial, as the witnesses only claimed to have definitely identified the suspects after showed them a list of alleged suspects during the trial. police station. However, during the initial investigation, police were unable to immediately identify the suspects. This inconsistency is important because what is at issue is the very participation of the alleged suspects in the crime.

We hope that we have been able to answer your questions. This advice is based solely on the facts that you have reported and our assessment of them. Our opinion may vary when other facts are modified or developed.

Editor's Note: Dear PAO is a daily column from the Attorney General's Office. Questions for Chief Acosta can be sent to [email protected]