PEOPLE VS. ARON AKIL, G.R. NO. 265570, APRIL 7, 2025: RESTATEMENT OF THE SO-CALLED “DANGER SIGNALS” IN DETERMINING THE RELIABILITY OF IDENTIFICATION OF A PERPRATOR OF A CRIME
BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
The instant case stems from the conviction of accused-appellant Aron Akil for violation of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 10883, otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016. Accused-appellant Akil was charged and convicted of Carnapping a motorcycle in Tupi, South Cotabato on August 22, 2017. Accused-appellant Akil was convicted based on circumstantial evidence: (1) based on the CCTV footage, the person who stole the subject motor vehicle was wearing a red ball cap, a yellow t-shirt, a black mask, and had a sling bag; (2) a few days after the subject motor vehicle was stolen, Akil himself was arrested for stealing a different motorcycle in the same town; (3) when Akil was brought to the police station, the police officers retrieved from his possession a red ball cap, a yellow t-shirt, a black mask, set of keys, and a sling bag; and (4) Akil’s alleged admission that he indeed stole the subject motor vehicle. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, hence, an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court restated that conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld, provided that the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. Alternatively, the Court held that all circumstances must be consistent with each other, compatible with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and in conflict with the notion that he or she is innocent.
In the instant case, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted accused-appellant Akil as it is not convinced that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution sufficiently established Akil’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Carnapping. The Court held that the identification made by private complainant JR Belardo is unreliable and cannot be considered as a positive identification of Akil as the perpetrator of the crime in question.
The Supreme Court restated upon the modes of out-of-court identification and the parameters to consider in evaluating whether an out-of-court identification is reliable using the totality of circumstances test, to wit: (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.
Parenthetically, the Supreme Court cited the case of People vs. Jimenez. G.R. No. 263278 (October 11, 2023), on the so-called “danger signals” which indicate that the identification of the accused may be erroneous even though the method used is proper, to wit: (1) the witness originally stated that he or she could not identify anyone; (2) the identifying witness knew the accused before the crime, but made no accusation against him or her when questioned by the police; (3) a serious discrepancy exists between the identifying witness’s original description and the actual description of the accused; (4) before identifying the accused at the trial, the witness erroneously identified some other person; (5) other witnesses to the crime fail to identify the accused; (6) before trial, the witness sees the accused but fails to identify him or her; (7) before the commission of the crime, the witness had limited opportunity to see the accused; (8) the witness and the person identified are of different racial groups; (9) during his or her original observation of the perpetrator of the crime, the witness was unaware that a crime was involved; (10) a considerable time elapsed between the witness’ view of the criminal and his identification of the accused; (11) several persons committed the crime; and (12) the witness fails to make a positive trial identification.
First, the identification of accused-appellant Akil was “tainted with apparent suggestiveness” as he was identified through a show-up. The police officers invited Belardo to the station where Akil was detained, and at that moment, Belardo knew that he was going to identify the person who stole the subject motor vehicle, and the police arranged that he be able to speak to Akil, and Akil alone.
Second, Belardo admitted that he was never able to see the face of the perpetrator and did not witness the actual commission of the offense having only seen the CCTV Footage of the Tupi Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council. The Court also emphasized that the CCTV footage was never even properly authenticated or even formally offered as evidence during trial.
Third, there was a gap of 18 days between the time when the subject motor vehicle was stolen, and the time Belardo visited Akil in detention. The Court also noted that there was no witness for the prosecution who was able to testify about the perpetrator’s physical appearance and there was no testimony on the person’s significant features, distinguishing marks, height, or skin complexion.
Finally, the Supreme Court that accused-appellant Akil’s rights during custodial investigation were violated. When Akil was detained at the police station, he was already a suspect and was, therefore, under custodial investigation. From the very moment the police officers called private complainant Belardo to the police station to meet Akil, the latter was already singled out as the culprit of the crime in question. Akil was, thus, entitled to the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court strongly admonished that it cannot sanction the police officers’ attempt at circumventing the constitutional and statutory protections for persons under custodial investigation by sending Belardo – a private individual who recently had his motorcycle stolen – to Akil to confront, question, and extract confession out of him. The Court held that while, technically speaking, Akil did not confess to the police officer, the indubitable fact is Belardo’s questioning was initiated by law enforcement officers.