This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-04-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| As narrated by Pabalan, two (2) of the appellants - Esoy and Ciano - sat infront of them while the other, Bolalacao, sat beside the victim. Considering the limited space inside a passenger jeepney, the faces of appellants can be easily seen by Pabalan in close range. Moreover, it is of no moment that the inside of a jeepney was only illuminated by a small bulb. The said kind of light has already been held by the Court as enough lighting for identification purposes. [13] Considering also the busy thoroughfare of Taft Avenue, Ermita, light emanating from the headlights of passing vehicles can contribute sufficient illumination [14] to enable Pabalan to identify appellants. We have held that when conditions of visibility are favorable, and the witness does not appear to be biased, as in the instant case, her assertion as to the identity of the malefactors should normally be accepted. [15] | |||||
|
2000-12-14 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| These newspaper reports are incompetent and inadmissible for being hearsay.[59] Besides, these newspaper accounts cannot prevail over the positive identification of accused-appellants. | |||||
|
2000-08-09 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| consummated. Jocelyn's repentance and desistance came too late. The elements of serious illegal detention are: [28] | |||||
|
2000-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We have long held that "the testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial court.[14] Prosecution witness Vasquez testified that he knew both appellant and his companion since they frequented the place of the stabbing incident as "standby" ("istambay").[15] Identification is facilitated by the fact that the person has gained familiarity with another.[16] In this case, the minor consistencies pointed out by appellant do not refer to the crux of the matter, which is his participation in the commission of the crime. Minor and inconsequential flaws in the testimony of the witness strengthen rather than impair his credibility.[17] Further, contradictions between the contents of an affiant's affidavit and his testimony on the witness stand do not always militate against the witness' credibility because it has long been within judicial notice that affidavits, which are usually taken ex parte, are often incomplete and inaccurate.[18] | |||||