The Supreme Court held that the right to counsel during custodial investigations does not extend to police lineups. This means that an identification made in a police lineup, even without a lawyer present, is admissible in court. The ruling underscores the distinction between investigatory stages and custodial interrogation, impacting the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings.

Kidnapped and Identified: Does a Police Lineup Require Counsel?

Eduardo Pavillare was convicted of kidnapping for ransom based on the identification by the victim, Sukhjinder Singh, an Indian national. Singh testified that Pavillare and others abducted him, demanding ransom. Pavillare was later identified in a police lineup and subsequently in court. His defense argued that the lineup identification was inadmissible because he was not assisted by counsel. The Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether the constitutional right to counsel applies during a police lineup, specifically in the context of a kidnapping case.

The heart of the matter rests on the interpretation of Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to counsel during custodial investigations. The provision states:

“Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.”

The crucial question is whether a police lineup constitutes a part of custodial investigation. The Supreme Court has consistently held that it does not. **Custodial investigation** is defined as the stage where a person is taken into custody and singled out as a suspect, and the police begin to ask questions aimed at eliciting an admission.

A police lineup, however, is considered a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, purely investigatory in nature. As the Court stated, the protection of the right to counsel does not extend to this preliminary stage. The ruling highlights the investigatory nature of a police lineup, distinguishing it from the more adversarial setting of a custodial interrogation.

The Court referenced several precedents to support this stance. In *Dela Torre vs. Court of Appeals*, it was clarified that the right to counsel is not automatically triggered during the investigative process. Similarly, in *People vs. Salvatierra*, the Court reinforced the idea that the police lineup is a preliminary step, not requiring the presence of counsel. These cases collectively establish a clear boundary between the right to counsel during custodial investigation and the procedural aspects of preliminary investigations.

The Court also addressed the admissibility of the in-court identification, even if the lineup identification was uncounseled. Quoting Sukhjinder Singh’s testimony, the Court emphasized the victim’s certainty in identifying Pavillare:

“Q:	Were you able to recognize the faces of the men and woman who abducted you on the afternoon of February 12, 1996?
A:	Yes, sir I can recognize if I see them again.
Q:	If you see them in court will you be able to identify them?
A:	Yes, sir.
Q:	Please point to them if the accused are inside the court room?
A:	That man, sir.

This direct and unequivocal identification reinforced the prosecution’s case. The court found that the complainant’s unwavering identification of Pavillare in court was credible and sufficient to support the conviction, regardless of the absence of counsel during the police lineup.

In addition to the identification issue, Pavillare raised the defense of alibi, claiming he was at a job site in Novaliches during the kidnapping. However, the Court dismissed this argument, citing the positive identification by the victim and his cousin. The Court noted that the distance between Novaliches and the crime scene did not make it impossible for Pavillare to be present during the kidnapping.

The prosecution presented a strong case, highlighted by the corroborating testimony of Lakhvir Singh, the victim’s cousin, who paid the ransom. The Court emphasized that it gives utmost respect to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, as the trial court has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses firsthand. Pavillare’s claim that the police investigator improperly suggested his identity to the victim was also rejected, due to lack of evidence.

Furthermore, Pavillare argued that he should have been convicted of robbery, not kidnapping for ransom, claiming the money was a bribe to drop rape charges. The Court refuted this, stating that the evidence clearly showed the demand for ransom in exchange for the victim’s release. The fact that the detention lasted only a few hours did not negate the crime of kidnapping, as **Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code** specifies that the death penalty is imposable when the detention is for the purpose of extorting ransom, irrespective of the duration.

Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.- any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death;

1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.

The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.

This legal provision makes clear that the intent to extort ransom is a critical element in the crime of kidnapping for ransom. The Court found that all the elements of kidnapping for ransom were present in the case.

The Court’s decision reinforces the distinction between the different stages of criminal investigation and the corresponding rights of the accused. While the right to counsel is paramount during custodial investigation, it does not automatically extend to earlier, more general investigatory procedures like police lineups.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	Whether the right to counsel during custodial investigations applies to police lineups, making an uncounseled identification inadmissible.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court ruled that the right to counsel does not extend to police lineups, as they are not part of custodial investigation.
What is custodial investigation?	Custodial investigation is when a person is taken into custody as a suspect and police begin asking questions to elicit an admission.
Why is a police lineup not considered custodial investigation?	A police lineup is considered a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and is purely investigatory in nature.
What was the accused’s defense?	The accused argued that the police lineup identification was inadmissible without counsel and presented an alibi.
Did the Court accept the accused’s alibi?	No, the Court dismissed the alibi due to the positive identification by the victim and his cousin and the proximity of the accused’s claimed location to the crime scene.
What is the significance of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code in this case?	Article 267 defines kidnapping and serious illegal detention, specifying that the death penalty is imposable when the detention is for ransom, regardless of duration.
Was the victim’s in-court identification considered valid?	Yes, the Court found the victim’s unwavering in-court identification of the accused as one of his abductors to be credible and sufficient.
What was the final verdict?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s decision, finding the accused guilty of kidnapping for ransom and imposing the death penalty.

This case clarifies the scope of constitutional rights during criminal investigations, particularly the right to counsel. Understanding the distinction between investigatory stages and custodial interrogation is crucial for both law enforcement and individuals facing criminal charges.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDUARDO PAVILLARE Y VARONA, G.R. No. 129970, April 05, 2000