This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-08-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Hence, this Court has not hesitated to acquit an accused when the circumstances under which the malefactor was sighted by the witness rendered identification impossible as when the distance from where the witness observed the incident was quite far[10] or illumination was poor.[11] An acquittal was also ordered where evidence indicating the accused's complicity was weak as when testimonies of the witnesses were deemed unreliable because of their mental and physical conditions when they gave their initial statements and the prosecution failed to present other proof which could have corroborated or strengthened their weak testimonies.[12] | |||||