This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-05-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The more important duty of the prosecution is to prove the identity of the perpetrator and not to establish the existence of the crime. For even if the commission of the crime is established, without proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the perpetrator, the trial court cannot convict any one.[37] Ferrer and Ramos' mental conception of the incident, the resulting inaccuracy in their narration, and the suggestiveness of the pictures presented to them for identification cast doubt on their testimonies that appellant is one of the perpetrators of the crime. | |||||
|
2003-08-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is an aphorism that to overcome the presumption of innocence the commission of the crime as well as the identity of its perpetrator must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, as this Court has previously observed, the first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal. For even if the commission of the crime can be established, without proof of identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt there can be no conviction.[9] | |||||
|
2000-10-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Worth noting, the police presented a single suspect to the witnesses for purposes of identification. We have said before that this method is a grossly suggestive identification procedure used by the police.[22] We cannot discount the possibility that the ability of the Pamarangs to suddenly identify Cabiles and delos Reyes as the gunmen, during the second confrontation, was influenced by SPO2 Ernesto Ganceña, considering that he is a compadre of the victim.[23] The prosecution failed to rebut delos Reyes' testimony that after the three Pamarangs failed to identify him and Cabiles as the authors of the crime, Ganceña brought them out of the investigation room for about five minutes and when they returned, it was then that the Pamarangs pointed to appellants as the killers.[24] | |||||