This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2003-06-10 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The contention is unconvincing. This Court has repeatedly held that the illumination of wicklamps, flashlights, headlights from cars, lights from lamp posts, even moonlight or starlight is sufficient to allow identification of persons.[16] The light coming from Prudencio's house was sufficient to enable the witnesses to recognize accused-appellants especially since Gerardo testified that their house was lighted not only by a lamp in their sala but also by improvised lamps in their kitchen. The light cast by these lamps which passed through the windows and their door reached up to the gate of the fence surrounding Prudencio's house.[17] Accused-appellants stood only a few meters away from Prudencio's house and the witnesses. | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The evidence shows that Salvacion was still holding the lit kerosene lamp when she saw appellant take away three bottles of gin and three packs of cigarettes from her store. Rachel and Lorna were also able to note appellant's physical features because of light from the kerosene lamp held by Salvacion, who was standing only two meters away from the intruders. In a number of cases,[13] we have held that wicklamps, flashlight, even moonlight and starlight may, in proper situations, be sufficient illumination; and an attack on the credibility of witnesses solely on this ground is without merit.[14] | |||||
|
2000-02-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| While it may be true that the crime took place in a dark area, this does not prevent the identification of the criminals. As testified to by Alexis, vehicles were passing by, providing light to the area.[27] We have held that wicklamps, flashlight, even moonlight and starlight may, in proper situations, be sufficient illumination, making the attack on the credibility of witnesses solely on this ground unmeritorious.[28] In People v. Gamboa,[29] and in People v. Pueblos,[30] this Court ruled that the light of the moon is sufficient for a person to identify another. In People v. Vacal,[31] the light of the stars may provide fair visibility. Thus, we see no reason to reject the identification made by the complainants in this case. | |||||