This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-02-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As regards the failure of the police to present a ballistic report on the seven spent shells recovered from the crime scene, the same does not constitute suppression of evidence. A ballistic report serves only as a guide for the courts in considering the ultimate facts of the case.[35] It would be indispensable if there are no credible eyewitnesses to the crime inasmuch as it is corroborative in nature.[36] The presentation of weapons or the slugs and bullets used and ballistic examination are not prerequisites for conviction. The corpus delicti and the positive identification of accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime are more than enough to sustain his conviction.[37] Even without a ballistic report, the positive identification by prosecution witnesses is more than sufficient to prove accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [38] In the instant case, since the identity of the assailant has been sufficiently established, a ballistic report on the slugs can be dispensed with in proving petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | |||||
|
2005-04-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Court notes that in the instant petition, the petitioner was able to assign the errors committed by the CA in upholding the Office of the Ombudsman. This is proof in itself that the assailed decision contains findings of facts and the conclusions of law on which the said decision was based.[25] | |||||