This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-07-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| An eyewitness account established that the petitioner's vehicle actually hit Rochelle Lanete. Eyewitness identification is vital evidence, and, in most cases, decisive of the success or failure of the prosecution.[23] One of the prosecution witnesses, Victor Soriano, unfortunately for the petitioner's cause, saw the incident in its entirety; Victor thus provided direct evidence as eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the crime.[24] In his September 1, 1994 testimony, Victor positively identified the petitioner as the person who drove the car that ramped on an island divider along Governor Forbes corner G. Tuazon Street, and hit Rochelle. To directly quote from the records: ATTY. ALICIA SERRANO: Q: Mr. Soriano, do you remember where were you on or about 10:00 o'clock (sic) of January 21, 1993? VICTOR SORIANO: A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Where were you? A: I was at the corner of Governor Forbes and G. Tuazon. Q: What were you doing at the corner of Governor Forbes and G. Tuazon at that time? A: My sidecar was parked there because I was waiting for my wife, ma'am. Q: And when you were there at the corner of G. Tuazon and Governor Forbes at the said time and place, was there any unusual incident that happened? A: Yes, sir. Q: And what was that unusual incident? A: I saw an accident involving a speeding car which ramped over the island and bumped a woman who was crossing the street. Q: When you saw that the car ramped over the island and hit and bumped a woman, what happened to the woman that was hit and bumped by the car which you said ramped over the island? A: The woman was thrown at the middle of the road on her back, ma'am. Q: When you saw this woman after being hit and bumped by the car that ramped over the island and was thrown at the middle of the road, what else happened? x x x x A: The woman was no longer moving at that time when I saw another car coming. x x x x Q: What else happened when you saw the car coming very fast? A: The woman sprawled at the middle of the road was ran over by the speeding car and that car stopped while going up to the flyover. x x x x Q: You said you saw a car that ramped over the island and that the car that ramped over the island was the car that hit and bumped the victim that was thrown at the middle of the street. Now, will you be able to identify before this court the driver of that car that ramped over the island and hit and bumped the victim? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: If that driver of the car that hit and bumped the victim is inside the courtroom, would you be able to point to him before this Honorable Court? A: Yes, ma'am, he is here. Q: Will you kindly point before this courtroom who is that driver of the car that hit and bumped the victim? Although, Your Honor, there was already a stipulation at the start of the pre-trial admitting that the accused Tabao is the driver of the car which ramped at the divider. INTERPRETER: Witness approaching a man seated inside the courtroom and who stood up and identified as Edwin Tabao, the accused in this case.[25] [emphases ours] | |||||
|
2010-12-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Eyewitness identification constitutes vital evidence and, in most cases, decisive of the success or failure of the prosecution.[124] Both the RTC and CA found the eyewitness testimony of Alfaro credible and competent proof that appellants Webb, Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez, Rodriguez and Estrada were at the scene of the crime and that Webb raped Carmela as the bloodied bodies of her mother and sister lay on top of the bed inside the master's bedroom, and right beside it stood Lejano while Ventura was preparing for their escape. At another house in BF Executive Village where the group retreated after leaving the Vizconde house, Alfaro witnessed the blaming session, particularly between Ventura and Webb, and thereupon learned from their conversation that Carmela's mother and sister were stabbed to death before she herself was killed. Alfaro likewise positively identified appellant Biong, whom somebody from the group described as the driver and bodyguard of the Webb family, as the person ordered by Webb to "clean the Vizconde house." | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is understandable for appellant to assail his out-of-court identification by the prosecution witnesses. This is so because the eyewitness identification is vital evidence and, in most cases, decisive of the success or failure of the prosecution.[35] | |||||
|
2000-10-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| 3 : Kailan mo naman nakita o nakilala ang taong iyong sinasabi na bumaril sa inyo, kung iyong tanda? : Noong pong petsa 15 ng Agosto, 1994, humigit kumulang sa oras alas 7:00 ng gabi sa Brgy. Dambo, Pangil, Laguna. 4 : Ano naman ang pangalan ng bumaril sa inyo, kung iyong nakikilala at iyong nakita? : Napagalaman ko na lamang po dito sa Himpilan ng Pulisiya ng Pangil, Laguna na ang pangalan ay si Ernesto Ibeas na naninirahan sa Brgy. Dambo, Pangil, Laguna. 5 : Bakit mo naman ngayon lamang itinuro ang bumaril sa inyo, sa anong dahilan? : Dahilan po na ngayon ko po lamang nakita ang taong bumaril sa amin. 6 : Bakit mo naman ngayon lamang nakita? : Sa dahilan po na ako po ay nagtigil sa San Pablo City at nang ako po ay umuwi sa Brgy. Dambo, Pangil, Laguna ay doon ko po nakita ang bumaril sa amin. 7 : Ano naman ang ginawa mo nang iyong makita at makilala ang taong bumaril sa inyo? : Nang aking pong makita ang taong bumaril sa amin ay aking pong ipinaalam sa Hepe ng Brgy. Tanod na si Jose de Guia. 8 : Inuulit ko sa iyo, may taong nandito sa aming Himpilan ng Pulisiya ng Pangil, Laguna, ito ba ang iyong nakikilala? : Iyan pong taong iyan ang bumaril sa amin (Witness identified the person of ERNESTO EBIAS residing at Brgy. Dambo, Pangil, Laguna).[30] It would thus seem that accused-appellant was the only person shown to Ronaldo Narez for identification. We have set our face against such procedure. The identification of the accused during a "show-up" or where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification is highly suggestive.[31] For confronted with a single suspect, an eyewitness would most likely yield to police pressure to identify the suspect as the perpetrator of the crime, substituting fancy for fact, suspicion for guilt. We cannot with certainty say that such is not the case here. This on the one hand. | |||||
|
2000-10-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Eyewitness identification constitutes vital evidence and, in most cases, decisive of the success or failure of the prosecution.[13] Yet, eyewitness identification is not always reliable or accurate, given the possibility of misidentification. In People vs. Teehankee,[14] we said:"Identification testimony has at least three components. First, witnessing a crime, whether as a victim or as a bystander, involves perception of an event actually occurring. Second, the witness must memorize details of the event. Third, the witness must be able to recall and communicate accurately. Dangers of unreliability in eyewitness testimony arise at each of these three stages, for whenever people attempt to acquire, retain, and retrieve information accurately, they are limited by normal human fallibilities and suggestive influences." | |||||