24646258 People vs Teehankee Case Digest

8/13/2019 24646258 People vs Teehankee Case Digest

1/4

Bantug, Marc Angelo V.II-BSLMCASE DIGESTPeople of the Philippines vs. Claudio Teehankee, Jr.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On July 10, 1991 Maureen Hultman, Jussi Leino and Roland Chapman while walking along thecorner of Caballero & Mahogany streets, was approached by the accused Teehankee jr. And after a seriesof events, the accused fired his gun killing Chapman and mortally wounding Hultman and Leino, then left.Leino, though mortally wounded mustered all his strength and called for help andnoticed at least 3 peoplelooking on from outside their house namely Vicente Mangubat, Domingo Florece and Agripino Cadenas.

Mangubat, after the gunman sped away, ran outside his house, helped the victimsand reportedthe incident to the proper authorities.

During their Investigation the NBI and the Makati police asked Jussi Leino twiceregarding the person whoshot them;

The first instance was On July 15, 1991 while Leino was still in the hospital, he was shown (3) pictures ofdifferent men by the investigators. He identified Claudio Teehankee Jr. as the gunman from the pictures.

In order to confirm the identification made by Leino and other witnesses Cadenasand Mangubat who alsopointed the accused as the gunman thru a separate out of court identification procedures. The Assistantdirector of NBI Epimaco Velasco, theChief of NBI-Special operations group Salvador Ranin and 2 otheragents broughtthe accused to Forbes park for further identification by the surviving victim, Jussi Leino.Leino has just been discharged from the hospital the day before. Since his parents were worried about hissafety, they requested the NBI to conduct the investigation of the gunman in Forbes Park where the Leinosalso live. The NBI agreed.

So, the security agents from US embassy fetched Leino at his house and his father to a vacant house inForbes Park. After a couple of minutes, Leino was brought

out of the laws and placed in a car with slightlytinted windows. The car was parked about 5 meters away from the house. Inside the car with Leino was hisFather,NBI-SOG chief Salvador Ranin and a driver. Leino was instructed to look at menwho will be comingout of the house and identify the gunman from the line up. A group of five to six men (including theaccused) then came out of the unoccupied house, into the street. From the group, Leino identified theaccused as the gunmanfor the second time.

3 separate criminal cases were filed against accused Claudio Teehankee, Jr. Initially, he was charged with:MURDER for the killing of ROLAND CHAPMAN, and two (2) FRUSTRATED MURDER for theshooting andwounding of JUSSI LEINO and MAUREEN HULTMAN. When Hultman subsequently died after 97 days ofconfinement at the hospital and during the course of the

trial, the Information for Frustrated Murder wasamended to MURDER.

The trial court convicted the accused Claudio Teehankee jr. because the strengthof the testimonies of 3eyewitnesses who positively identified him as the gunman. However, in his appeal, he vigorously assailedthe validity of the out-of-courtidentification by these eyewitnesses especially the identification of JussiLeino.

ISSUE:


2/4

Whether or not the out-of-court identification in this case is a valid and licitway in the identification of theaccused?

HELD:

Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is done thru show-ups where thesuspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. It isdone thru mug shots wherephotographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thru line-ups where a witnessidentifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. Since corruption of out-of-courtidentification contaminates the integrity of in-court identification during thetrial of the case, courts havefashioned out rules to assure its fairness and its compliance with the requirements of constitutional dueprocess. (People vs. Teehankee jr. 249 SCRA 54-125, pg 95).

Based on this statement given by the high court regarding the issue, we can saythat out-of the courtidentification of the accused is valid and licit when it isin line with the rules that the Supreme court have


3/4

fashioned. In the case given, the authorities did not violate anything stated inthe latter, otherwise it isstated in the decision that they violated one.

Wherefore, the out of court identification in this case is valid and licit. Which makes the contention of theaccused regarding the validity of the identification, groundless.


4/4

Documents

24646258 People vs Teehankee Case Digest