PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
                       Plaintiff-Appellee,

CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, JR.,
            Accused-Appellant.
 
 

The Information for murder in Criminal Case No. 91-4605 thus reads:

That on or about the 13th day of July, 1991, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said Claudio Teehankee, Jr. y Javier, armed with a handgun, with intent to kill and evident premeditation and by means of treachery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with and shoot with the said handgun Roland John Chapman who war hit in the chest, thereby inflicting mortal wounds which directly caused the death of said Roland John Chapman.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]

That on or about the 13th day of July, 1991, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said Claudio Teehankee, Jr. y Javier, armed with a handgun, with intent to kill and evident premeditation and by means of treachery, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the said handgun Maureen Navarro Hultman who was hit in the head, thereby inflicting moral wounds which directly caused the death of the said Maureen Hultman.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]

That on or about the 13th day of July, 1991, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while armed with a handgun, with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Jussi Olavi Leino on the head, thereby inflicting gunshot wounds which ordinarily would have caused the death of said Jussi Olavi Leino, thereby performing all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of murder as a consequence, but nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of cause or causes independent of his will, that is, due to the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Jussi Olavi Leino which prevented his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]

At the hearing of the petition for bail on August 9, 1991, the prosecution manifested that it would present the surviving victim, Jussi Leino, to testify on the killing of Chapman and on the circumstances resulting to the wounding of the witness himself and Hultman. Defense counsel Atty. Rodolfo Jimenez objected on the ground that the incident pending that day was hearing of the evidence on the petition for bail relative to the murder charge for the killing of Chapman only. He opined that Leino's testimony on the frustrated murder charges with respect to the wounding of Leino and Hultman would be irrelevant.[5]

Private prosecutor, Atty. Rogelio Vinluan, countered that time would be wasted if the testimony of Leino would be limited to the killing of Chapman considering that the crimes for which accused were charged involved only one continuing incident. He pleaded that Leino should be allowed to testify on all three [3] charges to obviate delay and the inconvenience of recalling him later to prove the two [2] frustrated murder charges.[6]

By way of accommodation, the defense suggested that if the prosecution wanted to present Leino to testify on all three [3)]charges, it should wait until after the arraignment of accused on August 14, 1991. The defense pointed out that if accused did not file a petition for bail, the prosecution would still have to wait until after accused had been arraigned before it could present Leino.[7]

The private prosecutor agreed to defer the hearing on the petition for bail until after arraignment of accused on the condition that there shall be trial on the merits and, at the same time, hearing on the petition for bail. The defense counsel acceded.[8]

Upon arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty to the three [3] charges. The prosecution then started to adduce evidence relative to all three [3] cases. No objection was made by the defense.[9]

A replay of the facts will show that on July 12, 1991, Jussi Olavi Leino invited Roland Chapman, Maureen Hultman and other friends for a party at his house in Forbes Park, Makati. The party started at about 8:30 P.M. and ended at past midnight. They then proceeded to Roxy's, a pub where students of International School hang out..[10] After an hour, they transferred to Vintage, another pub in Makati, where they stayed until past 3:00 A.M. of July 13, 1991. Their group returned to Roxy's to pick up a friend of Maureen, then went back to Leino's house to eat.[11]

After a while, Maureen requested Leino to take her home at Campanilla Street, Dasmariñas Village, Makati. Chapman tagged along..[12] When they entered the village, Maureen asked Leino to stop along Mahogany Street, about a block away from her house in Campanilla Street. She wanted to walk the rest of the way for she did not like to create too much noise in going back to her house. She did not want her parents to know that she was going home that late. Leino offered to walk with her while Chapman stayed in the car and listened to the radio..[13]

Leino and Maureen started walking on the sidewalk along Mahogany Street. When they reached the corner of Caballero and Mahogany Streets, 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: "Who are you? [Show me your] I.D." Leino thought accused only wanted to check their identities. He reached into his pocket, took out his plastic wallet and handed to accused his Asian Development Bank [ADB] I.D..[14] Accused did not bother to look at his I.D. as he just grabbed Leino's wallet and pocketed it..[15]

Chapman saw the incident. All of a sudden, he manifested from behind Leino and inquired what was going on. He stepped down on the sidewalk and asked accused: "Why are you bothering us?" Accused pushed Chapman, dug into his shirt, pulled out a gun and fired at him. Chapman felt his upper body, staggered for a moment, and asked: "Why did you shoot me?" Chapman crumpled on the sidewalk. Leino knelt beside Chapman to assist him but accused ordered him to get up and leave Chapman alone.[16]

Accused then turned his ire on Leino. He pointed gun at him and asked: "Do you want trouble?" Leino said "No" and took a step backward. The shooting initially shocked Maureen. When she came to her senses, she became hysterical and started screaming for help. She repeatedly shouted: "Oh, my God, he's got a gun. He's gonna kill us. Will somebody help us?"  All the while, accused was pointing his gun to and from Leino to Maureen, warning the latter to shut up. Accused ordered Leino to sit down on the sidewalk. Leino obeyed and made no attempt to move away. Accused stood 2-3 meters away from him. He knew he could not run far without being shot by accused.

Maureen continued to be hysterical. She could not stay still. She strayed to the side of accused's car. Accused tried but failed to grab her. Maureen circled around accused's car, trying to put some distance between them. The short chase lasted for a minute or two. Eventually, accused caught Maureen and repeatedly enjoined her to shut up and sit down beside Leino.[17]

Maureen finally sat beside Leino on the sidewalk. Two [2] meters away and directly in front of them stood accused.[18] For a moment, accused turned his back from the two. He faced them again and shot Leino. Leino was hit on the upper jaw, fell backwards on the sidewalk, 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.[19]

 Leino struggled to his knees and shouted for help. He noticed at least three [3] people looking on and standing outside their houses along Caballero Street.[20] The three were: Domingo Florece, a private security guard hired by Stephen Roxas to secure his residence at No. 1357 Caballero Street, Dasmariñas Village, Makati;[21] Vicente Mangubat, a stay-in driver of Margarita Canto, residing at No. 1352 Caballero Street corner Mahogany Street, Dasmariñas Village;[22] and Agripino Cadenas, a private security guard assigned at the house of Rey Dempsey located at No. 1351 Caballero Street corner Mahogany Street, Dasmariñas Village.[23]

Security guards Florece and Cadenas were then on duty at the house of their employer, while driver Mangubat was in his quarters, preparing to return to his own house. These three [3] eyewitnesses heard the first gunshot while at their respective posts. Upon hearing the first shot, Florece went out to Caballero Street to see what was happening, while Mangubat and Cadenas peeped over the fence of their employer's house and looked out to Caballero Street. Each saw a man [Chapman] sprawled on the ground, another man [Leino] sitting on the sidewalk, a third man standing up and holding a gun and a woman [Hultman]. They saw the gunman shoot Leino and Hultman and flee aboard his Lancer car. However, because of Florece's distance from the scene of the crime,[24] he was not able to discern the face of the gunman. He saw the plate control number of the gunman's car as 566. He described the getaway car as a box-type Lancer, its color somewhat white ["medyo maputi"].[25] Cadenas noticed in full the plate number of the getaway car and gave it as PDW 566. He described the car as silver metallic gray.[26] Both Cadenas and Mangubat saw the gunman's face. They had a good look at him. Cadenas was then a mere four [4] meters away from the gunman's car;[27] while Mangubat was about twenty [20] meters away from the scene of the crime..[28] The three confirmed that the corner of Caballero and Mahogany Streets where the shooting took place was adequately illuminated by a Meralco lamppost at the time of the incident.[29]

After the gunman sped away, Mangubat ran outside his employer's house and went near the scene of the crime. He noticed security guard Florece along Caballero Street. A man on a bike passed by and Mangubat requested him to report the shooting incident to the security officers of Dasmariñas Village.[30] Meanwhile, Florece returned to his post and narrated to his employer, Mrs. Helen Roxas, what he saw. Mrs. Roxas repaired to the crime scene while Florece noted the incident in his logbook [Exhibit "B"]. He also jotted down the license plate control number of the gunman's car as "566".[31]

The security guards of Dasmariñas Village came after a few minutes. They rushed Leino and Maureen to the Makati Medical Center for treatment.[32]  The Makati police and agents of the NBI also came. Patrolman James Baldado of the Makati police together with SPO3 Alberto Fernandez investigated the incident.[33] Their initial investigation disclosed that the gunman's car was a box-type Mitsubishi Lancer with plate control number 566. They checked the list of vehicles registered with the Village Homeowners' Association and were able to track down two [2] Lancer cars bearing plate control number 566. One was registered in the name of Jose Montano of 1823 Santan Street, Dasmariñas Village with plate number PKX 566, and another was traced to accused Claudio Teehankee, Jr. of 1339 Caballero Street, Dasmariñas Village, with plate number PDW 566.

Salvador Ranin, Chief of the Special Operations Group [SOG] of the NBI was also tasked by then NBI Director Alfredo Lim.[34] to head a team to investigate the shooting. Ranin's team immediately proceeded to the house of Jose Montaño.[35] where they found ahead of them the Makati police and operatives of the Constabulary Highway Patrol. Ranin tried to verify from Mrs. Montaño whether the white Lancer car registered in the name of Mr. Montaño and bearing plate number 566 was the gunman's car. Mrs. Montaño denied and declared they had already sold the car to Saldaña Enterprises. She averred the car was being used by one Ben Conti, a comptroller in said company, who resides in Cubao, Quezon City. Mrs. Montaño called up her husband and informed him about the investigation. She also called up Conti and asked him to bring the car to the house.[36]

Jose Montaño came around noon. Conti followed with white Lancer car. Ranin brought them to the NBI office for investigation together with the Lancer car. At the NBI, Ranin inquired from Montaño the whereabouts of his car on July 12 and 13, 1991. Montaño informed him that the car was at the residence of his employee, Ben Conti, at E. Rodriguez Street, Cubao, Quezon City, the night of July 12, 1991. In the morning of July 13, 1991, Conti drove the car to their office at Saldaña Enterprises. Conti confirmed this information. Ranin received the same confirmation from two [2] NBI agents who made a countercheck of the allegation. Upon Ranin's request, Montaño left his car at the NBI parking lot pending identification by possible witnesses.[37]

On July 14, 1991, a team of NBI agents conducted an on-the-spot investigation and neighborhood inquiry of the shooting incident. They interviewed Domingo Florece and asked him to report to their office the next day for further investigation.[38] They also interviewed Agripino Cadenas who was reluctant to divulge any information and even denied having witnessed the incident. Sensing his reluctance, they returned to Cadenas' post at Dasmariñas Village that night and served him a subpoena, inviting him to appear at the NBI office for investigation the next day.[39] The NBI agents also talked with Armenia Asliami, an Egyptian national residing at No. 1350 Caballero Street, Dasmariñas Village near the scene of the crime. Asliami informed the agents that the gunman's car was not white but light gray. A foreign national, Asliami was afraid and refused to give a statement about the incident. The agents exerted every effort to convince Asliami to cooperate, assuring her of their protection. Ranin even asked a representative of the Egyptian embassy to coax Asliami to cooperate. They failed.[40]

On July 15, 1991, Florece and Cadenas appeared at the NBI office as summoned. Florece readily executed a sworn statement.[41] Cadenas, however, continued to feign ignorance and bridled his knowledge of the incident. He was lengthily interviewed. At around 2:00 P.M., the NBI agents informed SOG Chief Ranin that Cadenas was still withholding information from them. Ranin talked to Cadenas in his office. Cadenas confided to Ranin his fear to get involved in the case. He was apprehensive that the gunman would harass or harm him or his family. After Ranin assured him of NBI protection, Cadenas relented.[42]

The next day, July 16, 1991, Cadenas gave a full disclosure to Ranin. He described the gunman's car as a box-type Lancer with plate number PDW 566. He was brought to the NBI parking lot where Montaño's white Lancer car was parked to identify the gunman's car. Ranin asked Cadenas if Montaño's was the gunman's car. Cadenas replied that its color was different. Ranin directed him to look around the cars in the parking lot and to point the color that most resembled the color of the gunman's car. He pointed to a light gray car. Ranin told him that the color of the car he pointed to was not white but light gray.[43]

Ranin then asked Cadenas if he could identify the gunman. Cadenas replied in the affirmative. Ranin led Cadenas to his office and showed him ten [10] pictures of different men [Exhibits "CC-1" to "CC-10"] taken from the NBI files. One of the pictures belonged to accused Claudio Teehankee, Jr. Cadenas studied the pictures, picked accused's picture [Exhibit "CC-7"] and identified him as the gunman. Cadenas wrote his name and the date at the back of said picture. Atty. Alex Tenerife of the NBI then took down Cadenas' statement.[44]

Ranin sent his agents and the witnesses to the Makati Regional Trial Court to apply for a search warrant. After a searching examination of the witnesses, Judge Rebecca Salvador issued a search warrant [Exhibit "RR"] authorizing the NBI to search and seize the silver metallic gray, 1983 Mitsubishi Lancer car owned by accused, bearing plate number PDW 566. Ranin and his agents drove to accused's house at #1339 Caballero Street, Dasmariñas Village, to implement the warrant.[45]

At accused's house, Ranin informed Mrs. Pilar Teehankee, mother of accused, of their search warrant. Ranin also told Mrs. Teehankee that they had orders from Director Lim to invite accused to the NBI office for investigation. Mrs. Teehankee informed them that accused was not in the house at that time. She excused herself, went to the kitchen and called up someone on the phone.[46]  In the meantime, Ranin and his men slipped to the Teehankee garage and secured accused's car. After a while, Mrs. Teehankee joined them. Ranin asked her for the car keys but she told him that the keys were with accused. Upon Ranin's request, Mrs. Teehankee got in touch with accused on the phone. Ranin conversed with accused and invited him to the NBI for investigation. Accused assured Ranin that he would report to the NBI later that day. The agents then towed the car of accused to the NBI office.[47]

At around 9:00 P.M., accused's brother, Raul Teehankee, arrived at the NBI office and waited for accused. Accused came, escorted by three [3] Makati policemen, after an hour. He informed them that he just came from the Makati police station where he was also investigated. He told Lim that he has given a statement to the Makati police and was brought to the PC Crime Laboratory for paraffin test.[48]

Accused's NBI investigation started. Lim asked accused of the whereabouts of his Lancer car at the time of the shooting. Accused claimed that his car was involved in an accident a few weeks back and was no longer functioning. The car had been parked in his mother's house at Dasmariñas Village since then. Due to the lateness of the evening, the group decided to continue the investigation the following day.[49]

The next day, July 17, 1991, after breakfast at the Manila Hotel, Lim pressed accused on what really happened at Dasmariñas Village. Accused said he did not see anything. Lim apprised accused that he would be confronted with some eyewitnesses. Accused sank into silence.[50]  Lim directed Ranin to prepare a line-up at his office. Accused was requested to join the line-up composed of seven [7] men and he acceded. Cadenas was called from an adjoining room[51] and Ranin asked him to identify the gunman from the line-up. Forthwith, Cadenas pointed to accused.[52] Accused merely stared at Cadenas.[53]

On the same day, then Asst. Director Epimaco Velasco, Ranin and two [2] other agents brought accused to Forbes Park for further identification by the surviving victim, Jussi Leino. Leino has just been discharged from the hospital the day before. Since Leino's parents were worried about his safety, they requested the NBI to conduct the identification of the gunman in Forbes Park where the Leinos also reside. The NBI agreed.[54]

House security agents from the U.S. Embassy fetched Leino at his house and escorted him and his father to a vacant house in Forbes Park along Narra Avenue. After a couple of minutes, Leino was brought out of the house and placed in a car with slightly tinted windows. The car was parked about five [5] meters away from the house. Inside the car with Leino was his father, NBI-SOG Chief Salvador Ranin and a driver. Leino was instructed to look at the men who would be coming out of the house and identify the gunman from the line-up.[55]

A group of five to six men [including accused] then came out of the unoccupied house into the street, in a line-up. Leino noticed that one of them was wearing sunglasses. Since Leino could not yet speak at that time due to the extensive injury on his tongue, he wrote down on a piece of paper a request for one of the men in the line-up to remove his sunglasses. Leino handed this written request to his father. The men in the line-up were herded back inside the house. After a couple of minutes, they again stepped out and none was wearing sunglasses. From the line-up, Leino identified accused as the gunman.[56]

The agents brought back accused to the NBI. They prepared and referred the cases of Murder and double Frustrated Murder against accused to the Department of Justice for appropriate action. At the inquest, Fiscal Dennis Villa-Ignacio did not recommend bail insofar as the murder charge was concerned. Hence, accused was detained at the NBI.[57]

The shooting incident was also investigated by the Makati Police. Pat. Baldado went to see security guard Vicente Mangubat at his post at the residence of his employer in Dasmariñas Village. Baldado interviewed Mangubat and invited him to the Makati police station where his statement [Exhibit "D"] was taken.[58]

The next day, July 16, 1991, at about 8:30 a.m., Pat. Baldado fetched Mangubat from his house and brought him to the Makati police station. At the station, Baldado told him to wait for a man who would be coming and see if the person was the gunman. Mangubat was posted at the top of the stairs at the second floor of the station.[59]  After a couple of hours, accused came with Makati police Major Lovete. He ascended the stairs, passed by Mangubat and proceeded to Major Lovete's office at the second floor. While accused was going up the stairs, Pat. Baldado inquired from Mangubat if accused was the gunman. Mangubat initially declined to identify accused, saying that he wanted to see the man again to be sure. He also confided to Pat. Baldado that he was nervous and afraid for accused was accompanied by a police Major. When accused came out from Major Lovete's office, Pat. Baldado again asked Mangubat if accused was the gunman. Mangubat nodded his head in response.[60] Accused, together with Major Lovete and Pat. Baldado, boarded a Mercedes Benz and left. Mangubat was brought back to his post at Dasmariñas Village by other Makatipolicemen.[61]

Two [2] days later, Pat. Baldado visited Mangubat at his employer's house and asked him again if accused was really the gunman. Once more, Mangubat answered in the affirmative. Pat. Baldado told Mangubat that he would no longer ask him to sign a statement which he [Baldado] earlier prepared [Exhibit "HHH"].[62] Baldado then left.[63]

In the afternoon of July 23, 1991, Mangubat was also questioned by the NBI agents. Director Lim asked Mangubat if he could recognize the gunman. Mangubat said he could. Mangubat was shown twelve [12] pictures [Exhibits "E" to "E-11"] of different men and was asked to identify the gunman from them. He chose one picture [Exhibit "E-10"] that of accused, and identified him as the gunman. Mangubat's statement was taken. He was asked to return to the NBI the next day to make a personal identification.[64]

When Mangubat returned, a line-up was prepared in Lim's office in the presence of the media. At that time, accused's counsels, Attys. Jimenez and Malvar, were at the office of then Asst. Director Epimaco Velasco protesting to the submission of accused to the identification. They pointed out that since the cases against accused had already been filed in court and they have secured a court order for the transfer of accused to the Makati municipal jail, any identification of accused should be made in the courtroom. Asst. Director Velasco insisted on the identification as it was part of their on-going investigation. Eventually, accused's counsels acquiesced but requested that the identification be made without the presence of the media. Velasco turned them down and explained that if accused is not identified in the line-up, the media coverage would favor accused.[65]

All that time, accused was at the SOG office. He refused to join the line-up at Lim's office and remained seated. Ranin was compelled to bring to the SOG office the men composing the line-up and he asked them to go near accused. Ranin then told Mangubat to go in the office. Mangubat pointed to accused as the gunman. With the identification of accused by Mangubat, the NBI wrote finis to its investigation.[66]

JussiI Leino, the surviving victim, suffered the following injuries:

FINDINGS:

- Abrasion, 0.5 cm., temporal area, left.

- Wound, gunshot, entrance, circular in shape, 1.0 cm. in diameter, located at the upper lip, mouth, along the medial line, directed backwards and downwards, fracturing the maxillary bone and central and lateral incisors, both sides, to the buccal cavity then lacerating the tongue with fragments of the bullet lodged in the right palatine, tongue and tonsillar region.

SKULLCHEST FOR RIBS X-RAY #353322July 13, 1991

No demonstrable evidence of fracture. Note of radioopaque foreign body (bullet fragments) along the superior alveolar border on the right. No remarkable findings.

CT SCAN #43992 July 13, 1991

Small hyperdensities presumably bullet and bone fragments in the right palatine, tongue and tonsillar regions with associated soft tissue swelling.

Anterior maxillary bone comminuted fracture.


Temporal lobe contusions with small hematomata on the right side.

Minimal subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Intact bone calvarium.

xxx   xxx   xxx[67]

Dr. Solis also testified as to the relative position of Leino and the gunman. He opined that the muzzle of the gun, like in the case of Maureen, must have been at a higher level than the victim's head. He concluded that the gun must have been pointed above Leino's head considering the acuteness and downward trajectory of the bullet.[69]

Dr. Leovigildo C. Isabela, a neuro-surgeon at the Makati Medical Center, operated on Maureen Hultman. He testified that when he first saw Maureen, she was unconscious and her face was bloodied all over. Maureen had a bullet hole on the left side of the forehead, above the eyebrow. Brain tissues were oozing out of her nostrils and on the left side of the forehead where the bullet entered.[70]

They brought Maureen to the x-ray room for examination of her skull. She was also given a CT scan. The examination revealed that she suffered injuries on the skull and brain. There were several splintered bullets in her brain and the major portion of the bullet, after it fragmented, was lodged beneath her right jaw.[71]

Maureen was rushed to the operating room for surgery. Dr. Isabela led a team who operated on her brain to arrest the bleeding inside her head, remove devitalized brain tissues and retrieve the splintered bullets embedded in her brain. Due to the extensive swelling of Maureen's brain and her very unstable condition, he failed to patch the destroyed undersurface covering of her brain.[72] After the surgery, Maureen's vital signs continued to function but she remained unconscious. She was wheeled to the ICU for further observation.

Two [2] weeks later, brain tissues and fluid continue to flow out of Maureen's nostrils due to the unpatched undersurface covering of her brain, leaving the swollen portion of her brain exposed. A second surgery was made on July 30, 1991, to repair Maureen's brain covering. He used the fascia lata of Maureen's right thigh to replace the destroyed covering of the brain. Nonetheless, Maureen remained unconscious. The trickle of brain tissues through her nose was lessened but Maureen developed infection as a result of the destruction of her brain covering. Maureen developed brain abscess because of the infection. She underwent a third operation to remove brain abscess and all possible focus of infection.[73]

Testifying on the extensive injuries suffered by Maureen Hultman, Dr. Solis explained that Maureen was shot at the left side of the forehead. The bullet entry was at 1.5 cm. above the eyebrow. Upon entering the forehead, the bullet fragmented into pieces and went from the left to the right side of the temple, fracturing the frontal bone of the skull. The bullet eventually settled behind the right jaw of Maureen.[74]  The wound inflicted on Maureen was mortal for it hit one of the most vital parts of the body, the brain. When Maureen was subjected to CT scan, they discovered hemorrhage in her brain. After the bullet hit her head, it caused hemorrhagic lesion on the ventricles of the brain and the second covering of the brain.[75]

The bullet also injured Maureen's eye sockets. There was swelling underneath the forehead brought about by edema in the area. Scanning also showed that Maureen's right jaw was affected by the fragmented bullet. The whole interior portion of her nose was also swollen.[76]

A team of doctors operated on Maureen's brain. They tried to control the internal bleeding and remove the splintered bullets, small bone fragments and dead tissues. The main bullet was recovered behind Maureen's right jaw. There was also an acute downward trajectory of the bullet. Hence, it was opined that Maureen was shot while she was seated.[77]

With each passing day, Maureen's condition deteriorated. Even if Maureen survived, she would have led a vegetating life and she would have needed assistance in the execution of normal and ordinary routines.[78] She would have been completely blind on the left eye and there was possibility she would have also lost her vision on the right eye. All her senses would have been modified and the same would have affected her motor functions. There was practically no possibility for Maureen to return to normal.[79]

Maureen did not survive her ordeal. After ninety-seven [97] days of confinement in the hospital, she ceased to be a breathing soul on October 17, 1991.

For his exculpation, accused relied on the defense of denial and alibi. Accused claimed that on said date and time, he was not anywhere near the scene of the crime. He alleged that he was then in his house at No. 53 San Juan, Barrio Kapitolyo, Pasig. He slept at around 1:00 a.m. on July 13, 1991 and woke up at around 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. that same morning. Accused avowed his two [2] maids could attest to his presence in his house that fateful day.[80]

Accused averred that he only came to know the three [3] victims in the Dasmariñas shooting when he read the newspaper reports about it. He denied knowing prosecution eyewitnesses Agripino Cadenas and Vicente Mangubat before they identified him as the gunman.[81]

Accused admitted ownership of a box-type, silver metallic gray Mitsubishi Lancer with plate number PDW 566. He, however, claimed that said car ceased to be in good running condition after its involvement in an accident in February 1991. Since May 1991 until the day of the shooting, his Lancer car had been parked in the garage of his mother's house in Dasmariñas Village. He has not used this car since then. Accused, however, conceded that although the car was not in good running condition, it could still be used.[82]

Accused said that on July 16, 1991, he went to the Makati police station at around 5:00 p.m. upon invitation of Chief of Police Remy Macaspac and Major Lovete who wanted to ask him about the ownership of the Lancer car parked in his mother's house. He readily gave a statement to the Makati police denying complicity in the crime. He submitted himself to a paraffin test. He was accompanied by the Makati police to the Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame and was tested negative for gunpowder nitrate.[83] After the test, he asked the Makati policemen to accompany him to the NBI for he had earlier committed to his mother that he would present himself to Director Lim.[84]

He arrived at Director Lim's office at about 9:30 to 10:00 p.m. He furnished Lim with the statement he earlier gave to the Makati police. Thereafter, Lim detained him at the NBI against his will.[85]  The following day, July 17, 1991, Lim and his agents brought him to the Manila Hotel for breakfast. When they returned to the NBI, he was asked to proceed to Lim's office. On his way, he saw a line-up formed inside Lim's office. The NBI agents forced him to join the line-up and placed him in the number seven (7) slot. He observed that the man who was to identify him was already in the room. As soon as he walked up to the line-up, Cadenas identified him as the gunman.[86]

A second identification was made on the same day at a house in Forbes Park. The NBI agents brought him to Forbes Park but he never saw Jussi Leino who allegedly identified him as the gunman in a line-up.[87]

A third identification was conducted on July 24, 1991. He was then seated at the office of Ranin for he refused to join another line-up. Despite his protest, the NBI agents insisted on the conduct of the identification and ordered a group of men to line up alongside him. While thus seated, he was identified by Mangubat as the gunman. He complained that he was not assisted by counsel at any stage of said investigation.[88]

The defense also presented Claudio Teehankee III, son of accused Claudio Teehankee, Jr. He testified that from May 1989 to February 1991, he had been using his father's Lancer car bearing plate number PDW 566 in going to school.[89]

In February 1991, while driving his father's Lancer car, he accidentally hit a bicycle driver and two [2] trucks parked at the side of the road. The accident resulted in the death of the bicycle driver and damage to his father's car,[90] especially on its body. The timing of the engine became a little off and the car was hard to start. They had the car repaired at Reliable Shop located in Banawe Street, Quezon city. After a month, he brought the car to the residence of his grandmother, Pilar Teehankee, at Dasmariñas Village, Makati. He personally started the car's engine and drove it to Makati from the shop in Quezon City. He did not bring the car to their house in Pasig for it was still scheduled for further repairs and they preferred to have the repair done in a shop in Makati. Teehankee III claimed that from that time on, he was prohibited by his father from using the car because of his careless driving. He kept the keys to the car and since he was busy in school, no further repair on said car had been made.[91]

Accused also imputed the commission of the crimes at bar to Anders Hultman, adoptive father of deceased victim Maureen Hultman. He capitalized on a newspaper report that the gunman may have been an over-protective father. This theory was formed when an eyewitness allegedly overheard Maureen pleading to the gunman: "Huwag Daddy. Huwag, Daddy." The defense presented Anders Hultman as a hostile witness.

Anders Hultman testified that he is a Swedish national. He and Vivian Hultman were married in the Philippines in 1981. Vivian had two [2] children by her previous marriage, one of whom was Maureen. He legally adopted Vivian's two [2] daughters in 1991. He and Vivian had three [3] children of their own.[92]

The defense confronted Anders with one of the angles of the crime in the initial stage of the investigation, i.e., that Maureen was overheard pleading to the gunman: "Huwag, Daddy. Huwag, Daddy." Anders explained that Maureen could not have uttered those words for Maureen never spoke Tagalog. He also said that all his children call him "Papa", not "Daddy".[93]

On July 12, 1991, he and Vivian permitted Maureen to have a night out but instructed her to be home by 2:00 a.m. Maureen just received her first salary in her first job and she wanted to celebrate with friends. At the time of the shooting, he and his wife were sleeping in their house. He woke up at around 5:15 a.m. of July 13, 1991 when a security guard came to their house and informed them about the killings.[94]

Anders admitted he had been vocal about the VIP treatment accorded to accused at the Makati municipal jail. On several occasions, he checked on accused in jail and discovered that accused was not in his cell. The jail guards even covered up accused's whereabouts. His complaint was investigated by the Congressional Committee on Crime Prevention, headed by Congressman Concepcion.[95]

The defense also presented two (2) Makati policemen, Pat. James Baldado and SPO3 Alberto Fernandez who investigated the shooting.

Pat. Baldado testified that in the course of his investigation, he learned from Mr. Jose Montaño that he sold his white Lancer car, with plate number PKX 566, to Saldaña Lending Investors in February 1991. This car was assigned to Ben Conti, Operations Manager of said company, and was in the residence of Conti at the time of the shooting. The other witnesses he interviewed confirmed that Montaño's white Lancer car was not in the vicinity of Montaño's residence at the time of the incident.[96]

SPO3 Fernandez testified that he interviewed security guard Vicente Mangubat. Mangubat saw the gunman and the getaway car but could not give the central letters of the car's license plate. Fernandez went to one of the houses at the corner of Mahogany and Caballero Streets and asked the maid therein if he could use the phone. After placing a call, the maid told him that he saw the gunman and heard one of the victims say: "Daddy, don't shoot. Don't, don't." Fernandez tried to get the maid's name but the latter refused. The defense did not present this maid in court nor asked the court to subpoena her to testify. Neither was the alleged statement of the maid included in the Progress Report [Exhibit "13"] prepared by the Makati police investigators.[97]

SPO3 Fernandez saw Mangubat the next time on July 16, 1991 when he and Baldado fetched the latter at Dasmariñas Village for identification of the gunman at the Makati police station.  At the police station, Fernandez and Baldado posted Mangubat at the lobby. After a few minutes, accused and company arrived. When accused passed by them, they instructed Mangubat to look around and see if he could identify the gunman. Mangubat failed to identify accused. Mangubat told Fernandez that the gunman was younger and shorter than accused.[98]

SPO3 Fernandez also took the statement of security guard Domingo Florece [Exhibit "MM"]. It was signed by Florece in his presence. In said statement, Florece described the gunman's car as "medyo puti" [somewhat white].[99]

Elizabeth Ayonon, forensic chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, testified on the paraffin test she conducted on July 17, 1991 on both hands of accused.[100] As per Chemistry Report No. C 274-91,[101] the test yielded a negative result of gunpowder nitrates on accused's hands. In said Report, she noted that accused was subjected to paraffin test more than seventy-two [72] hours after the shooting incident. She explained that 72 hours is the reasonable period within which nitrate residues may not be removed by ordinary washing and would remain on the hands of a person who has fired a gun.[102]

Atty. Manuel Q. Malvar, one of accused's counsel of record, also took the stand for the defense. He testified that in the course of handling the cases, he was able to confer with Ponferrada, Cadenas' supervisor at the security agency where Cadenas was employed. Ponferrada informed him that Cadenas confided to him that he was tortured at the NBI and was compelled to execute a statement. Ponferrada, allegedly, refused to testify. Atty. Malvar, however, admitted the defense did not compel the attendance of Ponferrada by subpoena. On rebuttal, Cadenas denied the torture story.

Atty. Malvar also admitted that he and Atty. Jimenez were aware of the irregularities committed in the off-court identification of their client. When asked what he did to remedy this perceived irregularity, Malvar said he objected to the conduct of the line-up. When further pressed whether he filed a petition for review raising this issue with the Department of Justice upon the filing of the cases therewith, he said he did not. He offered the excuse that he deferred to Atty. Jimenez, the principal counsel of accused at that time. He also declared that although they knew that arraignment would mean waiver of the alleged irregularities in the conduct of the investigation and preliminary investigation, he and Atty. Jimenez allowed accused to be arraigned.[103]

The defense likewise relied on a number of news accounts reporting the progress in the investigation of the case. It presented seven [7] newspaper reporters as witnesses, viz: Nestor Barrameda of the Manila Times, Martin Marfil and Dave Veridiano of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Nida Mendoza of Malaya, Itchie Kabayan and Alex Allan of the People's Journal, and Elena Aben of the Manila Bulletin. The bulk of defense evidence consists of newspaper clippings and the testimonies of the news reporters, thus:

Nestor Barrameda, a news reporter of the Manila Times, identified two [2] news reports as having been partly written by him. One was a news item, entitled: "JUSTICE DEP'T ORDERS PROBE OF THREE METRO KILLINGS" [Exhibit "1"] appearing on the July 16, 1991 issue of the Manila Times.[104] He, however, clarified that a news report is usually the product of collaborative work among several reporters. They follow the practice of pooling news reports where several reporters are tasked to cover one subject matter. The news editor then compiles the different reports they file and summarizes them into one story.[105]

The defense lifted only certain portions of Exhibit "1" and marked them in evidence as follows:
 
 

Bello directed NBI Deputy Director Epimaco Velasco to take over the investigation of the murders of Roland Chapman, 21, Eldon Maguan, 25, and three members of a family  Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters, Carmela, 19, and Anne Marie Jennifer, 7.

Police said that Chapman's assailant could have been angered when Hultman, a 10th grader at the International School in Makati, was escorted home by Chapman after going to a disco.

The lone gunman, witnesses told police, first pistol-whipped Hultman.

The same witnesses said Chapman and Leino were shot when they tried to escape.

Other angles. Velasco said "we are pursuing two angles" in the Chapman murder.

One, he said, is the jealousy angle and the other is a "highly sensitive" matter that might involve influential people.[106]

Superintendent Lucas Managuelod, CIS Director for the National Capital Region, claims, however, that another security guard, Vic Mangubat, had testified before the police that another man, not Teehankee, had fired at Chapman and his companions.
 

The CIS official added that the absence of nitrite or powder burns on Teehankee's hands as shown by paraffin tests at the CIS laboratory indicated that he may not have fired the gun.[108]

Witnesses said Hultman talked with the gunman whom she called "Daddy" shortly before Chapman's shooting.
 

But Ranin said they were also looking into reports that Hultman was a dancer before she was adopted by her foster parent.
 

Investigations showed that the gunman sped along Caballero Street inside the village after the shooting and was believed to have proceeded toward Forbes Park using the Palm Street gate.

According to NBI Director Alfredo Lim, the break in the case came when the witness showed up and said that the gunman was on board a silver-metallic Lancer.

The witness said the gunman was standing a few feet away near the car and was talking to Hultman, who was shouting "Huwag! Daddy!" several times.[110]

Nida Mendoza, a reporter of the Malaya, identified a news report entitled: "TEEHANKEE SON HELD ON DASMA SLAYING," which appeared on the July 18, 1991 issue of Malaya. She testified that she wrote a portion thereof, marked as Exhibit "5-c" and the sources of her information were several Makati policemen.[112] Exhibit "5-c" reads:

Makati policemen, meanwhile, disputed NBI accounts that Teehankee was arrested at his house.

They said Teehankee, the last remaining owner of a car with plate control number 566 who had not been questioned, voluntarily went to police headquarters upon invitation of Makati Police Chief Superintendent Remy Macaspac.[113]

Itchie Cabayan, a reporter of the People's Journal, identified the portions she wrote in the news item, entitled: ''I WILL HOUND YOU", which appeared on the October 24, 1991 issue of People's Journal [Exhibit "6"]. She identified the source of her information as Mr. Anders Hultman himself.[114]

The portions thereof were marked in evidence by the defense, viz:
 

"I will be visiting him often and at the most unexpected occasion," Hultman said the day after his 17-year old daughter was cremated.[115]

The day Maureen died, a congressional hearing granted the Hultman family's request for permission to visit Teehankee in his cell "at anytime of their choice."

"If on my next visit he still refuses to come out and is still hiding behind the curtain," Hultman said, "Congress told me that I can take the curtain down and jail authorities will pull him out."[116]

"Kaawaawa naman ang mga Hultmans, tulungan natin sila," Ong was quoted as telling Vergel de Dios.

BIR insiders said Ong has shown a keen interest in the Chapman-Hultman, Vizconde and Eldon Maguan cases because he belongs to a secret but very influential multi-sectoral group monitoring graft and corruption and other crimes in high levels of government and society.[118]

Dave Veridiano, a reporter of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, identified the news account which appeared on the July 16, 1991 issue of the Inquirer, entitled: "DASMA SLAY SUSPECT IDENTIFIED" [Exhibit "7"]. He wrote a portion of said article [Exhibit "7-c"] and the source of his information was Camp Crame.[120] It reads:
 

Witnesses said the gunman fled aboard a white Mitsubishi Lancer with plate number "566." The witnesses cannot tell the plate's control letters.[121]

At the Criminal Investigation Service, however, an investigator who asked not to be identified insisted that the NBI got the wrong man. The NBI has taken over the case from the CIS.

He said the CIS will shortly identify the suspect killer whom he described as "resembling Teehankee but looks much younger."

The source said that the police's "prime witness," identified only as Mangubat, saw everything that happened in the early morning of July 13. The witness, however, failed to identify Teehankee as the gunman.[122]

The CIS pulled out from the case a day after its so-called "surprise witness" picked Claudio Teehankee, Jr. from an NBI lineup.

"Sira ulo pala siya [Mangubat]. Ilang beses kong pinarada sa kanya si Bobby [Teehankee Jr.] puro iling siya. Hindi raw ito ang suspect. Ngayon bigla niyang ituturo," said a red-faced Makati investigator who, as usual, did not want to be identified.

The victims were on their way home in Olanileino's Mercedez Benz with a diplomat's plate number when a white Lancer with plate number PKX-566 blocked its path.

US embassy spokesman Stanley Schrager said Chapman's father is a communications specialist. He said the shooting could be the result of an altercation on the street.[127]

He was shot to death by a group of armed men at the corner of Mahogany and Caballero Sts. in Dasmariñas Village at past 4 a.m. Friday.

The NBI sources said that jealousy sparked the slaying of Chapman who was killed in front of his friends on his way home from a party. The armed men, on board a white Lancer car, blocked the path of the victim's Mercedes Benz car inside the village before the shooting.

The gunmen then alighted from their car and at gunpoint ordered Chapman to alight from the car. They shot Chapman several times in the body, while his companions identified as Maureen Hultman, and Jussi Olanileino, were seriously wounded when the gunmen sprayed the car with bullets.

The gunmen escaped after the shooting.  Lim said he will announce later the names of the detained suspects after their initial investigation.[128]

The NBI said Teehankee was one of four men who blocked Chapman's car on Mahogany St. in the subdivision.

Witnesses said they saw Teehankee order Chapman and his two companions, Maureen Hultman and Jussi Olanileino, a Finn, to get out of their car.

They identified the car used by the suspect, a silver gray Lancer with Plate No. PDW 566. They added that they saw the same car in the garage of the Teehankee family.[129]

The prosecution recalled to the stand, eyewitness Vicente Mangubat as its rebuttal witness. Mangubat insisted that he was able to identify accused when he saw the latter at the Makati police station. He reiterated that the next day, Pat. Baldado of the Makati police went to his place of work in Dasmariñas Village and asked him if he was sure about the identity of the gunman. He told Baldado he was positive. Baldado then said to him he would no longer require him to sign the statement he prepared for him earlier.[131]

Leonora C. Vallado, Chief of the Forensic Chemistry Division of the NBI, was also presented as a prosecution rebuttal witness. She testified that extensive washing of hands or excessive perspiration can eliminate gunpowder nitrates lodged on skin pores of the hands. Continued washing with hot water can induce perspiration and remove nitrate residue embedded in the skin pores. Application of vinegar on the hand can register the same effect.[132]  She testified that their practice at the NBI is to take the paraffin test on a suspect within 72 hours from the time of the alleged firing of a gun, during which time, any possible trace of nitrate may still be found.[133]

She divulged that questions have been raised regarding the reliability of the paraffin test. She related that she once attended a training in Baguio City where they tried to test the accuracy of a paraffin test. In said training, two [2] NBI agents fired a .38 revolver. One of them washed his hands. They then subjected both agents to a paraffin test using diphylamine reagent. Both yielded a negative result. Thus, she opined, the result of a paraffin test should merely be taken as a corroborative evidence and evaluated together with other physical evidence.[134]

The records show that the case was set for hearing on October 29, 1992, for the presentation by the defense of sur-rebuttal evidence. However, a day before the scheduled hearing, the defense filed a Constancia[135] manifesting that it shall waive its right to present sur-rebuttal evidence, the same being unneccesary. The defense, however, declared that this is without prejudice to the presentation of its evidence in the trial proper should the same be necessary.

At the hearing of October 29, 1992, the defense counsels did not appear. The prosecution moved in open court that the main cases and the petition for bail be submitted for decision in view of the absence of defense counsels who had manifested that they would no longer present their sur-rebuttal evidence. The motion was granted and the parties were given ten [10] days from receipt of the Order within which to submit their simultaneous Memorandum.[136] It does not appear that the defense objected to this Order. The records show that the defense even filed a motion asking for additional time to file its Memorandum.[137] In due time, both parties submitted their respective Memoranda.

On December 22, 1992, the trial court convicted accused Claudio Teehankee, Jr. of the crimes charged.[138]  The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby renders judgment:

[1] In criminal Case No. 91-4605, finding accused Claudio J. Teehankee, Jr., guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Murder, qualified by treachery, for the fatal shooting of Roland John Chapman, and sentencing said accused to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the said deceased the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos [P50, 000.00], Philippine Currency, plus moderate or temperate and exemplary damages in the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos [P500,000.00], Philippine Currency;

[2] In Criminal Case No. 91-4606, finding accused Claudio J. Teehankee, Jr., guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Murder, qualified by treachery, for the fatal shooting of Maureen Navarro Hultman, and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua, and to pay the heirs of the said deceased the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos [P50,000.00], Philippine Currency, plus the sums of Two Million Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-One Pesos and Eighty-Three Centavos [P2,350,461.83], Philippine Currency, as actual damages; Thirteen Million Pesos [P13,000,000.00], Philippine Currency, for loss of earning capacity of the said deceased; and One Million Pesos [P1,000,000.00], Philippine Currency, as moral, moderate and exemplary damages;
 

[3] In Criminal Case No. 91-4607, finding accused Claudio J. Teehankee, Jr., guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Frustrated Murder, qualified by treachery, for the shooting of Jussi Olavi Leino, and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum and to pay the said offended party the sum of Thirty Thousand Pesos [P30,000.00], Philippine Currency; plus the sum of One Hundred Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred Sixty-Nine Pesos and Eighty-Four Centavos [P118,369.84], Philippine Currency, and another sum equivalent in Philippine Pesos of U.S. $55,600.00, both as actual damages; an amount equivalent in Philippine Pesos of U.S. $40,000.00, as loss of earning capacity of said offended party; and One Million Pesos [P1,000,000.00], Philippine Currency, as moral, moderate and exemplary damages.

[4] In all these three cases, ordering said accused to pay all the offended parties the sum of Three Million Pesos [P3,000,000.00], Philippine Currency, as and for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and

[5] To pay the costs in these three cases.

Consequently the petition for bail is hereby denied for utter lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Accused interposed the present appeal.[140] He contends that:
 

We shall discuss these alleged errors in seriatim.
 

Appellant was convicted on the strength of the testimonies of three [3] eyewitnesses who positively identified him as the gunman. He vigorously assails his out-of-court identification by these eyewitnesses. He starts by trying to discredit the eyeball account of Jussi Leino, the lone surviving victim of the crimes at bar. Appellant urges:

First, that Leino's identification of him outside an unoccupied house in Forbes Park was highly irregular.

Second, that Leino saw his pictures on television and the newspapers before he identified him.

Third, that Leino's interview at the hospital was never put in writing.

Fourth, that the sketch of appellant based on the description given by Leino to the CIS agents was suppressed by the NBI. It is surmised that the sketch must have been among the evidence turned over to the NBI when the latter assumed jurisdiction over the investigation.

Lastly, that Leino could not have remembered the face of appellant. The shooting lasted for only five [5] minutes. During that period, his gaze could not have been fixed only on the gunman's face. His senses were also dulled by the five [5] bottles of beer he imbibed that night.

xxx   xxx   xxx

Identification testimony has at least three components. First, witnessing a crime, whether as a victim or a bystander, involves perception of an event actually occurring. Second, the witness must memorize details of the event. Third, the witness must be able to recall and communicate accurately. Dangers of unreliability in eyewitness testimony arise at each of these three stages, for whenever people attempt to acquire, retain, and retrieve information accurately, they are limited by normal human fallibilities and suggestive influences. [Emphasis supplied].[142]

Using the totality of circumstances test, We hold that the alleged irregularities cited by appellant did not result in his misidentification nor was he denied due process. There is nothing wrong in Leino's identification of appellant in an unoccupied house in Forbes Park. The records reveal that this mode was resorted to by the authorities for security reasons.[144] The need for security even compelled that Leino be fetched and escorted from his house in Forbes Park by U.S. embassy security officials and brought to the house where he was to make the identification. The Leinos refused to have the identification at the NBI office as it was cramped with people and with high security risk.[145] Leino's fear for his safety was not irrational. He and his companions had been shot in cold blood in one of the exclusive, supposedly safe subdivisions in the metropolis. Atty. Salvador Ranin, Chief of the Special Operations Group of the NBI, correctly testified that there is no hard and fast rule as to the place where suspects are identified by witnesses. Identification may be done in open field. It is often done in hospitals while the crime and the criminal are still fresh in the mind of the victim.[146]

Appellant cannot also 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 on July 15, 1991, 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.[147] 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.

We have no reason to doubt the correctness of appellant's identification by Leino. The scene of the crime was well-lighted by a Meralco lamp post. Appellant was merely 2-3 meters away when he shot Leino. The incident happened for a full five [5] minutes. Leino had no ill-motive to falsely testify against appellant. His testimony at the trial was straightforward. He was unshaken by the brutal cross-examination of the defense counsels. He never wavered in his identification of appellant. When asked how sure he was that appellant was responsible for the crime, he confidently replied: "I'm very sure. It could not have been somebody else."[148]

Appellant cannot likewise capitalize on the failure of the investigators to reduce to a sworn statement the information revealed by Leino during his hospital interviews. It was sufficiently established that Leino's extensive injuries, especially the injury to his tongue, limited his mobility. The day he identified appellant in the line-up, he was still physically unable to speak. He was being fed through a tube inserted in his throat. There is also no rule of evidence which requires the rejection of the testimony of a witness whose statement has not been priorly reduced to writing. Reliance by appellant on the case of People v. Alindog [149] to erode Leino's credibility is misplaced. In Alindog, accused was acquitted not solely on the basis of delay in taking his statement but mainly on the finding that the prosecution evidence was, at best, circumstancial and "suspiciosly short in important details," there being no investigation whatsoever conducted by the police.

We also reject appellant's contention that the NBI suppressed the sketch prepared by the CIS on the basis of the description given by Leino. There is nothing on the record[150]  to show that said sketch was turned over by the CIS to the NBI which could warrant a presumption that the sketch was suppressed. The suspicion that the sketch did not resemble appellant is not evidence. It is unmitigated guesswork.

We are not likewise impressed with the contention that it was incredible for Leino to have rememb