This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-04-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| [E]ntr[ies] in the police blotter about the suspects being "unidentified" will not help the cause of the accused. It does not mean that Shirley Aguilus failed to identify the accused when she reported to the police. She was categorical in her testimony that she did identify the accused not by their names but by their nicknames. It could be that the Desk Officer simply did not consider the nicknames a sufficient identification of the accused and so wrote "unidentified" in the police blotter because the accused were not identified by their proper names. Besides, even granting in arguendo that Shirley failed to identify the accused to the police when she reported the incident, her failure to do so will not impair her credibility.[27] Citing People v. Divina,[28] the trial court continued | |||||
|
2000-02-08 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Regarding the issue of bail, accused-appellant argues that although his counsel was given the chance to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses at the bail hearings, he was not given the opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence to disprove that the evidence of his guilt was strong. In such cases, where the prosecution was not given the chance to present evidence to prove that the guilt of the accused was strong, we held that the proper remedy was for him to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.[33] This same principle must apply to cases where the defense was not accorded a chance to present any rebuttal evidence. When the trial court denied his application for bail accused-appellant should have filed a petition for certiorari before the appellate court.[34] Hence, it is also too late for him to question the trial court's decision of denying his application for bail. Besides, the conviction of accused-appellant undoubtedly proves that the evidence of guilt against him was strong.[35] | |||||