This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-09-28 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| For resolution of the Court is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] filed by petitioners Ethel Acampado, Emmie Acampado, Elvie Acampado, Earlyn Acampado and Evelyn Acampado seeking to reverse and set aside the Resolutions dated 28 June 2007[2] and 19 August 2011[3] of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City in CA-G.R. SP. No. 00805. The assailed resolutions reversed the Order[4] dated 16 May 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aklan, Branch 6 which denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondents Spouses Lourdes and Felimon Cosmilla for being pro forma. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision reads: | |||||
|
2014-05-05 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| It is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to see the looks and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which the crime was committed. Most often the face of the assailant and body movements thereof, creates a lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from their memory.[129] | |||||
|
2010-04-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the reliability of Pabalan's memory should not be doubted by the mere fact that identification of the appellants at the police line-up happened several days after the incident. It is known that the most natural reaction of a witness to a crime is to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrator and to observe the manner in which the offense is perpetrated. [16] Most often the face of the assailant and body movements thereof, create a lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from a witness's memory. [17] Experience dictates that precisely because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before their eyes, eyewitnesses can remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of criminals at any given time. [18] | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Second, as found by the trial court, the robbery took place at a very close range, in front of the Calaycay store, whose immediate frontage was lighted by a fluorescent lamp, as well as by the headlights of the jeep owned by the Calaycays, and the lights of passing vehicles. Thus we agree that Catalina was afforded the opportunity to look fully at the faces of the persons who robbed her and fired a gun at her as well as their companions who shot and stabbed her husband to death. The conditions of visibility that fateful evening were, in our view, sufficient for identification of the malefactors. The illumination from a fluorescent lamp, the headlights of a parked jeep, and the lights of passing vehicles suffice for such identification. Moonlight,[56] starlight,[57] kerosene lamps,[58] a flashlight,[59]and lights of passing vehicles[60] have been declared adequate to provide illumination sufficient for purposes of recognition and identification. The illumination provided by a fluorescent lamp, the headlights of a jeep, and the lights of passing vehicles altogether made identification easier. But even where the circumstances were less favorable, witness Catalina's familiarity with faces of appellants considerably reduced any error in identifying the culprits. Appellants' contentions on this score show neither a valid reason nor a sufficient cause why we should reject Catalina's testimony identifying appellants as the culprits. | |||||
|
2003-09-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We note that at the heart of the prosecution's case is the familiarity of Annie Bayanes and Marlon Manis with appellant. Absent this familiarity, the prosecution's theory that circumstantial evidence shows that appellant killed Nemesio would collapse like a house of cards. It was precisely this familiarity with appellant, which enabled said witnesses to recognize him as the person tucking a gun in his waistband and walking away from the fallen victim. Bayanes had known appellant for some ten (10) years before the incident and even described him as a "good man."[73] She was only five or six meters away from the scene of the crime and was able to fully look at the face of the person tucking a gun in his pants and walking away. Familiarity with the physical features, particularly those of the face, is actually the best way to identify the person.[74] That the only illumination in the area came from the taillight of a parked vehicle and the lights on the roof of the bagsakan does not discredit her account. We have held that moonlight,[75] starlight,[76] kerosene lamps,[77] a flashlight,[78] and lights of passing vehicles[79] may be adequate to provide illumination sufficient for purposes of recognition and identification. Under the circumstances of these cases, this Court believes that Bayanes was in the position and had a fair opportunity to identify appellant as the person leaving the crime scene with a gun tucked in his waist. | |||||