This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-12-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| On June 28, 1991, Webb's parents visited him at Anaheim and stayed with the Brottmans. On the same day, his father introduced Honesto Aragon to his son when he came to visit.[40] On the following day, June 29, Webb, in the company of his father and Aragon went to Riverside, California, to look for a car. They bought an MR2 Toyota car.[41] Later that day, a visitor at the Brottman's, Louis Whittacker, saw Webb looking at the plates of his new car.[42] To prove the purchase, Webb presented the Public Records of California Department of Motor Vehicle[43] and a car plate "LEW WEBB."[44] In using the car in the U.S., Webb even received traffic citations.[45] | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Contrary to accused-appellants' claim, only three (3) of the victims were armed with armalite rifles, namely: Clemente Samulde, Pat. Armelito Tamboong and Mamerto Zaldivar, Jr. Clemente and Armelito were armed because they were policemen of Pandan, Antique. The fact that some of the victims were found positive for nitrates does not conclusively show that they fired a gun. It is well settled in forensic evidence that nitrates are also found in substances other than gunpowder.[66] We noted that scientific experts concur in the view that the result of a paraffin test is not conclusive. While it can establish the presence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand, it does not always indubitably show that said nitrates or nitrites were caused by the discharge of firearm. The person tested may have handled one or more of a number of substances which give the same positive reaction for nitrates or nitrites, such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, and leguminous plants such as peas, beans, and alfalfa. A person who uses tobacco may also have nitrate or nitrite deposits on his hands since these substances are present in the products of combustion of tobacco. The presence of nitrates, therefore, should be taken only as an indication of a possibility but not of infallibility that the person tested has fired a gun.[67] | |||||
|
2001-03-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| True, the settled rule is that alibi is a weak defense. It has been held that courts will not at once look with disfavor on the defense of alibi. Alibi may be considered in light of all the evidence for it may be sufficient to acquit the accused.[44] | |||||