Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GR No 142556
GR No 142556
142556
February 5, 2003
Appellant’s claim that the police improperly suggested to Mayia to identify appellant is
without basis. True, Mayia did not identify appellant in a police line-up when Mayia
identified appellant in his cell. However, appellant, in his testimony admitted that he had
two other companions in his cell. Moreover, the Court has held that there is no law requiring
a police line-up as essential to a proper identification. Even without a police line-up, there
could still be a proper identification as long as the police did not suggest such identification
to the witnesses. The records are bereft of any indication that the police suggested to Mayia
to identify appellant as the rapist.
Mayia’s identification in open court of appellant as her rapist dispels any doubt as to the
proper identification of appellant. Mayia positively identified and pointed to appellant as her
rapist. We are satisfied that her testimony, by itself, is sufficient identification of her rapist.
As held in People v. Marquez:
“xxx. Indeed, the revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full
credit, as the willingness of complainant to face police investigation and to undergo the
trouble and humiliation of a public trial is eloquent testimony of the truth of her complaint.
Stated differently, it is most improbable for a five-year old girl of tender years, so innocent
and so guileless as the herein offended party, to brazenly impute a crime so serious as rape
to any man if it were not true.”