People v. Ansano, G.R. No. 232455, December 2, 2020

 PEOPLE V. ANSANO, G.R. NO.
232455, DECEMBER 2, 2020

DOCTRINE:
the totality of circumstances test requires the Court to look at the following factors in weighing the reliability of the out-of-court
identification:
(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 length of time between the crime and the identification;
(5) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; and
(6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
FACTS:
On April 6, 2005, at about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, shewas going to fetch her father at Narra, where
he was thenselling goods at the river. This was at [GGG][7] near the river. Accused Ansano was then carrying
a bolo, wearing a long-sleeved shirt and long pants used in the farm; while she waswearing red t-shirt and
school uniform skirt. Ansano poked hisbolo at her and told her to go with him to the falls near theNarra tree. Because
she was afraid and he threatened to kill her if she does not go with him, she went along. When they were nearing the
falls, he turned the other way. He held her tightly by the shoulder, dragged her to a secluded area with
bamboo trees and coconuts and told her to sit down and not to shout, still poking the bolo at her. He then removed
his clothes, undressed her, laid her down,kissed her neck and placed his penis into her mouth. She cried very
hard and vomited at that time. Thereafter, accusedinserted his penis into her vagina. It was
painful. Accused rested for a while, and then did it again.
Thereafter, accused put on his clothes and directed her to remain lying down until he left the place. After he left,
she put on her clothes and went home. She proceeded to bed and cried. Her mother asked her why she
was crying and she told her that she was raped. Her father went to the place of the incident but the person who
abused her was no longer there, so her father reported the incident to the police station.
The victim went to [ZZZ] Provincial Hospital for a medical examination. At the time of the incident on April6, 2005,
she was [just] thirteen (13) years old. She presented her Certificate of Baptism issued by Santo Cristo of
Bulacan,Valenzuela, Metro Manila, showing that she was born on September 14, 1991 and baptized on
September 25, 1991. Shedoes not have a Certificate of Live Birth, as her birth was notregistered because the midwife
who attended to the delivery ofher mother went abroad.The next prosecution witness was Dr. Maria Cheryl Obcemea
xx x [and] [h]er qualification as an expert witness was admittedby the defense. She testified that according to their
records,she examined the patient AAA on April 7, 2005 at [ZZZ]Provincial Hospital. She was the one who
physically examined AAA and her findings was reduced into writing in a Medico-Legal Report. Said
findings indicate "Perineum: hymen-multiple fresh laceration 7 and 5 o'clock position; minimal bleeding."
The victim alleged that She came to know the name and identity of the accused on March 19, 2006,
when she saw him in their house having a drinking spree with her father. She was able to recognize him
("namumukhaan"); he has a scar and "butil-butil" on his face; he has a moustache and "medyo singkit".
She came to know his name for the first time when she went to the XXX Municipal Hall, where accused
was detained because of the case filed by BBB. She was shown a picture of the accused, which she
examined clearly, and she was sure that he was the one who raped her.
As a defense, Ansano interposed denial and alibi.
RTC & CA: convicted the accused

 t]he clear, consistent andspontaneous testimony of [AAA] unrelentingly established howAnsano sexually
[assaulted] her
 AAA positively identified accused-appellant as the perpetrator
ISSUE:
WON the testimony of the victim sufficiently establish the certainty of accused’s identity
RULING:
NO. The victim’s testimony was unable to pass the exacting test of moral certainty that the law
demands and the rules require to satisfy the prosecution's burden of overcoming appellant's
presumption of innocence.
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. Since corruption of out-of-court identification contaminates the integrity
of in-court identification during the trial of the case, courts have fashioned out rules to assure its fairness and its
compliance with the requirements of constitutional due process.
The totality of circumstances test requires the Court to look at the following factors in weighing the
reliability of the out-of-court identification:
(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 length of time between the crime and the identification;
(5) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; and
(6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
Essentially, the problem with eyewitness testimony is that the human mind is not just limited in terms of perception,
but that human memory is also highly susceptible to suggestion.
Applying the above rule in this case:
First and second elements are undoubtedly present, the victim had ample of time and opportunity to view the
criminal at the time of commission of the crime; and there is high degree of attention as they were the only persons
at that time.
The third element, however, is unavailing, AAA's description of her attacker was general and related mostly to, not
her assailant's physical features, but what he was wearing at the time of the crime. In her direct testimony, the only
descriptions that she gave were that: "[h]e is taller than I am; he was carrying a bolo; he was wearing a long-sleeved
shirt; he was wearing long pants he used in the farm, sir." These were her only descriptions of her assailant as she
was narrating the rape incident. The description that her assailant had a scar on his face and that it had "butil-butil"
came after, when she saw Ansano on March 19, 2006. There is also no scar on the accused face during the trial.
For the length of lime between the crime and the identification: raped happened in april 2005. the victim
identified the accused in march 2006. her description of him in 2005 vary from her description in 2006. she identified
the photograph of the accused but only one photo was shown.
The last two factors: the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification, and the
suggestiveness of the identification procedure: The Court notes that AAA did not show a high level of certainty
in her initial identification of Ansano. she used the word "namumukhaan" instead of "nakilala" when she saw Ansano
on March 19, 2006. More glaring, however, was that she needed a second look for her to be able to ascertain that
Ansano was her assailant — this time, through a photograph while Ansano was detained for another charge
In sum, while the defenses of denial and alibi are inherently weak, they are only so in the face of an effective
identification64 which, as discussed, was not present in this case.
A conviction for a crime rests on two bases:

(1) credible and convincing testimony establishing the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of
the crime; and
(2) the prosecution proving beyond reasonable doubt that all elements of the crime are attributable
to the accused.”
“Proving the identity of the accused as the malefactor is the prosecution’s primary responsibility.
Thus, in every criminal prosecution, the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the first duty of the prosecution is not to prove
the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal, for even if the commission of the crime can be
established, there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the criminal beyond reasonable
doubt.
The constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys is not demolished by an

identification that is full of uncertainties.
The first rule in proper photographic identification procedure is that a series of photographs must be shown, and not
merely that of the suspect. The second rule directs that when a witness is shown a group of pictures, their
arrangement and display should in no way suggest which one of the pictures pertains to the suspect.

People v. Ansano, G.R. No. 232455, December 2, 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Ansano, G.R. No. 232455, December 2, 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Ansano, G.R. No. 232455, December 2, 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

 PEOPLE V. ANSANO, G.R. NO.

232455, DECEMBER 2, 2020

As a defense, Ansano interposed denial and alibi.

RTC & CA: convicted the accused

Applying the above rule in this case:

A conviction for a crime rests on two bases:

The constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys is not demolished by an

You might also like