G.R. Nos.

111206-08 October 6, 1995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, JR., accused-appellant.

FACTS:

While Maureen and Leino are walking on the way home from a party, a light-colored
Mitsubishi box-type Lancer car, driven by accused Claudio Teehankee, Jr., came up from
behind them and stopped on the middle of the road. Accused alighted from his car,
approached them, and asked them who they are.

Chapman saw the incident and inquired what was going on. Accused pushed
Chapman, dug into his shirt, pulled out a gun and fired at him. Chapman crumpled on the
sidewalk. Thereafter, accused turned his ire on Leino. He shot Leino who was hit on the
upper jaw, fell backwards, but did not lose consciousness. Leino heard another shot and
saw Maureen fall beside him. He lifted his head to see what was happening and saw
accused return to his car and drive away.

Leino struggled to his knees and shouted for help. He noticed at least three (3)
people looking on and standing outside their houses, who served as witnesses. They
were invited at the NBI office where they positively identified the gunman from the
pictures shown before them. Furthermore, Leino, the surviving victim, positively identified
the gunman from the line-up presented before him.

Thus, three (3) separate Informations were filed against accused Claudio
Teehankee, Jr. for the shooting of Roland John Chapman, Jussi Olavi Leino and
Maureen Hultman. Initially, he was charged with: MURDER for the killing of ROLAND
CHAPMAN, and two (2) FRUSTRATED MURDER for the shooting and wounding of
JUSSI LEINO and MAUREEN HULTMAN. When Hultman died during the course of the
trial, the Information for Frustrated Murder against accused was amended to MURDER.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused had been positively identified by the victim and the
witnesses.

HELD:

Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is done thru

show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for
identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to
identify the suspect. It is also done thru line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect
from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. In resolving the admissibility of and
relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of
circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: (1) the witness'
opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of
attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4)
the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of
time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the
identification procedure. 

Appellant cannot gripe that Leino saw his pictures and heard radio and TV accounts
of the shooting before he personally identified him. Indeed, the records show that while
Leino was still in the hospital, he was shown three (3) pictures of different men by the
investigators. He identified appellant as the gunman from these pictures. He, however,
categorically stated that, before the mug shot identification, he has not seen any picture
of appellant or read any report relative to the shooting incident.  The burden is on
appellant to prove that his mug shot identification was unduly suggestive. Failing proof of
impermissible suggestiveness, he cannot complain about the admission of his out-of-
court identification by Leino.