Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People vs. Macam Digested
People vs. Macam Digested
admission in evidence of custodial identification of an uncounseled accused cannot be applied. On the other
hand, appellants did not object to the in-court identification made by the prosecution witnesses. The
prosecution witnesses, who made the identification of appellants at the police line-up at the hospital, again
identified appellants in open court. Appellants did not object to the in-court identification as being tainted by
the illegal line-up. In the absence of such objection, the prosecution need not show that said identifications
were of independent origin (Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 18 L Ed 2d 1178, 87 S Ct 1951 [1967]).