This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-12-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| x x x Section 36 [of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court[22]] requires that an objection in the course of the oral examination of a witness should be made as soon as the grounds [therefor] shall become reasonably apparent. Since no objection to the admissibility of evidence was made in the court below, an objection raised for the first time on appeal shall not be considered.[23] | |||||
|
2008-11-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| x x x Section 36 [of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court[22]] requires that an objection in the course of the oral examination of a witness should be made as soon as the grounds [therefor] shall become reasonably apparent. Since no objection to the admissibility of evidence was made in the court below, an objection raised for the first time on appeal shall not be considered.[23] | |||||
|
2003-08-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As the Court held in one case, the accused cannot capitalize on the failure of the witness to get a long, hard look at him during the incident when circumstances render the same unnecessary.[21] While evidence as to the identity of accused-appellant as the person who committed the crime should be carefully analyzed, this Court has consistently held that where conditions of visibility are favorable and the witness does not appear to be biased against the man on the dock, his or her assertions as to the identity of the malefactor should be normally accepted.[22] Jurisprudence further recognizes that victims of criminal violence have a penchant for seeing the faces and features of their attackers and remembering them.[23] | |||||