This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-08-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The arguments of appellants do not persuade. The victim recounted that there were lights emanating from the nearby DECS (now DepEd) and COA buildings, and several residences.[69] The place was bright enough for her to see the faces of her assailants, only that she did not know their names.[70] Familiarity with the physical features of a person is an acceptable way for proper identification.[71] Indeed, We agree with the following ruling of the trial court, thus:Defense' contention that they were not sufficiently identified cannot be taken seriously. Accused did not resort to any disguise. There could be no doubt as to their identities. Besides, it appears that the accused stayed with Clarissa for a couple of hours so that there was ample time and opportunity for her to see and observe their features.[72] | |||||