This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2013-07-17 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Even the theory of the defense that identification of the petitioner by Manalangsang and Cañada is unlikely due allegedly to the lack of sufficient illumination at the scene of the crime, has been overcome by the fact that there are lampposts and signboards in the subject area which can provide illumination despite the black of night. Indeed, even assuming arguendo that the lampposts were not functioning at the time, the headlights of passing vehicles provided sufficient illumination at the crime scene.[20] "The Court has previously held that the light from the stars or the moon, an oven, or a wick lamp or gasera can give ample illumination to enable a person to identify or recognize another."[21] Similarly, the headlights of vehicles are sufficient to enable eyewitnesses to identify individuals at a distance of four to ten meters,[22] and it should be noted that the distance between Manalangsang and the jeep where Hispano was felled was only 31 feet[23] or a little over nine meters.[24] | |||||
|
2007-06-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Second: It has always been said that criminal cases are primarily about human nature.[13] In the instant case, appellant disappeared after his wounded wife was rushed to the hospital. This is indeed contrary to human nature. A husband is expected to lend comfort to his dying wife up to her last breath. In this case, however, appellant took flight. It is well-established that the flight of an accused is competent evidence to indicate his guilt, and flight, when unexplained, as in this case, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn.[14] | |||||
|
2004-12-10 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| True, there are exceptions to this rule, such as when the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the participation of the co-accused in the crime, or when the confession is corroborated by other pieces of evidence.[37] In such instances, the significance of the confession comes to the fore, but only in relation to the other circumstantial evidence establishing the guilt of the person incriminated. In the instant case, the merits of the fifth and the sixth circumstances mentioned by the appellate court depend, therefore, on the strength of the other circumstantial evidence against petitioner. | |||||
|
2004-01-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, allegations of impropriety committed during custodial investigation are relevant and material only to cases in which an extrajudicial admission or confession is the basis of conviction.[26] In the present case, the conviction of petitioner was not deduced solely from his admission, but from the confluence of circumstantial evidence showing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | |||||