Digest PP vs. TEEHANKEE

Further considerations; Delay in reporting a crime.
PEOPLE vs. TEEHANKEE
FACTS:
Three (3) separate Informations were filed against accused Claudio Teehankee, Jr. for the
shooting of Roland John Chapman, Jussi Olavi Leino and Maureen Hultman. Initially, he was
charged with: MURDER for the killing of ROLAND CHAPMAN, and 2 FRUSTRATED MURDER
for the shooting and wounding of JUSSI LEINO and MAUREEN HULTMAN. When Hultman
died during the course of the trial, the Information for Frustrated Murder against accused
was amended to MURDER.
On or about 13 July 1991, Teehankee, armed with a handgun, with intent to kill and evident
by premeditation and by means of treachery, did there and then shoot Roland John
Chapman causing his death. Which was amended, which reads: the accused, armed with a
handgun shot Jussi Olavi Leino on the head, who survived due to the timely medical
assistance rendered.
The two (2) Informations for frustrated murder was initially filed. During the hearing, the
prosecutor manifested to present the surviving victim to testify. The defense counsel
objected on the ground that hearing was on the petition on bail. Private prosecutor pleaded
that Leino should be allowed to testify in all 3 charges to obviate delay and inconvenience of
recalling him later. However, it was agreed that they should wait until after the arraignment
since if he accused did not file a petition to bail the prosecution would have to wait until
after the arraignment before it could present Leino.
Leino invited Chapman and Maureen and others to a party. Maureen requested that Leino
take her home and Chapman tagged along. While they were walking a car stopped and
asked for their identities. Leino showed his ID but the accused showed no interest and
instead grabbed his wallet and pocketed it. Chapman saw this and intercepted and inquired
as to what’s going on. He asked the accused ‘why are you bothering us?” but the accused
pushed him, pulled out a gun and shot him. Leino was going to assist Chapman but was
order by the accused to leave him alone. Maureen then started to get hysterical and started
screamin for help. The accused pointed the gun to her from Leino. Maureen tried to distance
herself but was caught in the end. The two were sitting side by side. The accused turned his
back for a moment and when he faced them again, he shot Leino. Leino was hit on the
upper jaw and fell backwards on the sidewalk but did not lose consciousness. He heard
another gunshot and saw Maureen fall beside him. He lifted his head and saw the accused
return to his car and drive away.
Leino shouted for help. And noticed people standing outside their houses. Each saw a man
(Chapman) sprawled on the ground, another man (Leino) sitting on the sidewalk, a third
man standing up ad 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 control numbers of the gunman's car. 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.
The security guards were able to track the vehicles registered with the homeowners
association. One of which was owned by accused, Teehankee. The witnesses were examined
and the accused was identified as the gunman. A search warrant was issued to search and
seize the car owned by the accused. The NBI agents went to the accused’s home but he
was not there. Nevertheless, they got in touch with him through his mother. The accused
came at the NBI office and informed tem that he came from Makati police station. Accused
claimed that his car was involved in an accident and was no longer functioning. Accused was
included in the line up to identify the gunman and Cadenas pointed at him.
On the same day, Laino has been discharged from the hospital. He was escorted to get
inside the car, which is 5 meters away from the house, and identify which of the men
exiting the house is the gunman. He first requested that one of the suspects remove his
sunglass and identified the accused as the gunman. The agents filed for the appropriate
action and then the accused was detained at the NBI.
The case was also investigated by the Makati poiice. And also concluded that the accused
was the gunman.
Page 1 of 2
Further considerations; Delay in reporting a crime.
The accused relied on the defense of denial. He was tested negative for gunpowder nitrates
in the paraffin test. His son also testified that he has been using his father’s car. Accused
also alleged that the overprotective father may have been the gunman as one eyewitness
overhead Maureen pladeing “huwag daddy, huwag daddy”. However, Andres explained that
Maureen never spoke tagalog and his children call him papa not daddy.
Andres was vocal about the VIP treatment at the municipal jail and discovered that accued
was not in his cell and jail guards even cover up his whereabouts.
One of the accused counsel testified that Ponferrada informed him that Cadenas confided
that he was tortured to give his statement. Ponferrada refused to testify and Cadenas
denied it.
Defense counsel presented newspaper reporters’s selective portion of their report.
NBI Forensic division also testified that extensive washing of hands or excessive perspiration
can eliminate gunpowder nitrares on skin pores.
Thus, she opined, the result of a paraffin test should merely be taken as a corroborative
evidence and evaluated together with other physical evidence.
The trial court convicted Claudio Teehankee, Jr of the crimes charged. Bail is denied.
Accused hired a new counsel and filed a motion for new trial but it was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Cadenas initial reluctance to cooperate with authorities is an indicium of

credibility
RULING:
No.
Cadenas' initial reluctance to reveal to the authorities what he witnessed was sufficiently
explained during the trial. He related that he feared for his and his family's safety. His fear
was not imaginary. He saw with his own eyes the senseless violence perpetrated by
appellant. He knew appellant belonged to an influential family. It was only after consistent
prodding and assurance of protection from NBI officials that he agreed to cooperate with the
authorities.The Court has taken judicial notice of the natural reticence of witnesses to get
involved in the solution of crimes considering the risk to their lives and limbs. In light of
these all too real risks, the court has not considered the initial reluctance of fear-gripped
witnesses to cooperate with authorities as an authorities as an indicium of credibility.
Furthermore, the allegation that Cadenas was tortured by the NBI is belied by the fact that
his entire family was allowed to stay with him at the headquarters ang likewise extended
protection.
Wherefore, the decision of the trial court is affirmed with modifications
Page 2 of 2

Digest PP vs. TEEHANKEE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest PP vs. TEEHANKEE

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

Digest PP vs. TEEHANKEE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Further considerations; Delay in reporting a crime.

PEOPLE vs. TEEHANKEE

Whether or not Cadenas initial reluctance to cooperate with authorities is an indicium of

Wherefore, the decision of the trial court is affirmed with modifications

You might also like